title: Case C-389/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium)) — Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar SA, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV, KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad (Electronic communications — Directive 2002/21/EC ( Framework Directive) — Articles 2(g), 3 and 4 — National regulatory authority — National legislature acting as national regulatory authority — Directive 2002/22/EC ( Universal Service Directive) — Networks and services — Article 12 — Costing of universal service obligations — Social component of universal service — Article 13 — Financing of universal service obligations — Determination of whether an unfair burden exists)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium)) — Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar SA, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV, KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad
   (Case C-389/08) (1)

   (Electronic communications - Directive 2002/21/EC (‘Framework’ Directive) - Articles 2(g), 3 and 4 - National regulatory authority - National legislature acting as national regulatory authority - Directive 2002/22/EC (‘Universal Service’ Directive) - Networks and services - Article 12 - Costing of universal service obligations - Social component of universal service - Article 13 - Financing of universal service obligations - Determination of whether an ‘unfair burden’ exists)
   2010/C 328/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar SA, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV, KPN Belgium NV

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Intervener: Belgacom NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium — Interpretation of Article 12 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Calculation of the cost of universal service obligations — No assessment on a case-by-case basis

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) does not in principle preclude, by itself, the national legislature from acting as national regulatory authority within the meaning of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) provided that, in the exercise of that function, it meets the requirements of competence, independence, impartiality and transparency laid down by those directives and that its decisions in the exercise of that function can be made the object of an effective appeal to a body independent of the parties involved, which it is for the Grondwettelijk Hof to determine.

               2.

               Article 12 of Directive 2002/22 does not preclude a national regulatory authority from determining generally and on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the universal service provider which was previously the sole provider of that service that the provision of universal service may represent an ‘unfair burden’ for those undertakings designated as universal service providers.

               3.

               Article 13 of Directive 2002/22 precludes that authority from deciding in the same way and on the basis of the same calculation that those undertakings are effectively subject to an unfair burden because of that provision, without having undertaken a specific examination of the situation of each of them.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-75/01: Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 161/25
The applicant considered that the facts justified the bringing            After completion of tasks by a consultant, who determined,
of proceedings against ‘X’ before the Luxembourg court of                 inter alia, the broad outline for modernisation of the sector
competent jurisdiction.                                                   concerned, the applicant was instructed by the Commission,
                                                                          at an initial stage, to assist in drawing up the proposal for
                                                                          financing various elements of the ESSP Programme. The
The appointing authority rejected the applicant’s request that
                                                                          financing proposal was accepted and the applicant was
he be allowed to produce in the Luxembourg Criminal Court
                                                                          instructed, in the second stage, to draw up terms of reference
all the documents listed in an annex to that request, and any
                                                                          for the various elements of the ESSP Programme, and to assist
other relevant document which had not been disclosed to him.
                                                                          the Syrian beneficiaries in evaluating the pre-qualification
That is the decision at issue in these proceedings.
                                                                          tender files. The final responsibility for adoption of the terms
                                                                          of references, evaluation of the tenders and drafting of the
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          contracts attached to the Syrian authorities, under Commission
                                                                          supervision. Following the further preparation of the detailed
—     infringement of Articles 19 and 24 of the Staff Regu-               specifications for a system appropriate to Syrian conditions, a
      lations;                                                            call for tenders was issued by the Syrian authorities for the
                                                                          installation of an OPS (Operation Planning System). Two
—     infringement of Articles 6 and 13 of the European                   tenders were submitted in response to that call, one of which
      Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                   considerably undercut the competing tender, being submitted
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               by the applicant itself. The applicant was finally successful.
                                                                          The applicant adds, however, that, more than one month after
                                                                          signature of the contract, it was advised that the Commission
                                                                          was no longer able to approve the contract, but no reasons for
                                                                          this were given. Indeed, it did not become aware of the
                                                                          Commission’s alleged reasons until proceedings were brought
                                                                          before the Ombudsman.
Action brought on 29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
                           (Case T-75/01)                                 Commission’s improper conduct in this case is apparent from
                                                                          various acts, courses of conduct and failure to act occurring
                                                                          throughout the procedure for award of the contract at issue,
                          (2001/C 161/49)                                 and subsequently after signature of that contract by the Syrian
                                                                          authorities.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
29 March 2001 by Systems-Europe SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard Jamoulle, Frédéric Louis and Anne
Vallery, Lawyers.
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-349/99 (1)
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     order the European Community, represented by the                                             (2001/C 161/50)
      Commission, to pay to Systems-Europe SA the sum of
      EUR 921 750 ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                          has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-349/99,
                                                                          Miroslav Miskovic v Council of the European Union.
The applicant, which at the material time was a medium sized
independent engineering consultancy company incorporated
under Belgian law, specialising in particular in data processing
in the electricity sector, seeks compensation for the loss                (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
allegedly suffered by it as a result of the alleged misconduct of
the Commission in the context of a programme of financial
support for modernisation of the production and distribution
of electricity in Syria (ESSP Programme).


title: Case C-373/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2013 — H. T. v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2013 — H. T. v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-373/13)
   2013/C 325/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H. T.

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Must the rule contained in the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC, (1) concerning the obligation of Member States to issue a residence permit to persons who have been granted refugee status, be observed even in the case of revocation of a previously issued residence permit?

                           (b)

                           Must that rule therefore be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the revocation or termination of the residence permit (by expulsion under national law, for example) of a beneficiary of refugee status in cases where the conditions laid down in Article 21(3) in conjunction with (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC are not fulfilled or there are ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           How must the ground for exclusion of ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ in the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC be interpreted in relation to the risks represented by support for a terrorist association?

                           (b)

                           Is it possible for ‘compelling reasons of national security or public order’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC to exist in the case where a beneficiary of refugee status has supported the PKK, in particular by collecting donations and regularly participating in PKK-related events, even if the conditions for non-compliance with the principle of non-refoulement laid down in Article 33(2) of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and also, therefore, the conditions laid down in Article 21(2) of Directive 2004/83/EC are not fulfilled?

               3.

               If Question 1(a) is to be answered in the negative:
               Is the revocation or termination of the residence permit issued to a beneficiary of refugee status (by expulsion under national law, for example) permissible under European Law only in cases where the conditions laid down in Article 21(3) in conjunction with (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC (or the identically-worded provisions of Directive 2011/95/EU, the successor to Directive 2004/83/EC) are satisfied?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case T-359/09: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2010 — Jurašinović v Council (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Reports of observers sent by the European Union to the Knin region (Croatia) — Interim measure — Inadmissibility — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/45

         Order of the General Court of 17 June 2010 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-359/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Reports of observers sent by the European Union to the Knin region (Croatia) - Interim measure - Inadmissibility - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 221/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: A. Beguin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 17 June 2009 refusing the applicant access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’, and for annulment of the implied refusal decision adopted on confirmatory application and, second, application seeking a declaration that the Council be ordered to authorise access, in electronic form, to the documents requested.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the heads of claim in the action brought by Ivan Jurašinović for annulment of the implied decision of the Council of the European Union rejecting his confirmatory application for access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’;

               2.

               The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               3.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles Contargyris against the Council of the European Union (Case T-6/96)

text:
No C 77/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 3 . 96
The applicant considers that the medical committee 's                responsible for more than 10 years, takes issue with the
reports are unlawful in so far as once the committee had             rejection of his application for the vacant post of
established a direct link between the disease and the                Director-General of DG J. He contends that one reason why
performance of an occupational activity, it had exhausted its        his application was unsuccessful lies in the need to have
task; the committee's breakdown in percentage terms of the           regard for a geographical balance in management posts
various factors which contributed to the emergence of the            within the institution .
applicant's disease exceeded the scope of the question
referred to it and had no basis in the Staff Regulations .           The applicant first of all claims that there has been a breach
                                                                     of Articles 4 and 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as
The applicant asserts, finally, that the method of calculation       the contested decisions were taken without prior
used by the defendant infringes the principle of equality.           consultation of the Permanent Representatives Committee.
Firstly, she is discriminated against in comparison with             In the present case, he argues, the Council was notified only
other persons less vulnerable to certain working conditions,         of the proposal by the Secretary-General, which merely
whereas every official must be recognized as fit for work at         refers to the list of posts for the 1995 budgetary year and to
the medical examination before recruitment. Secondly, the            the expediency of appointing the candidate who was
lack of provision in the applicable Community rules as to            ultimately successful to Grade A 1 with effect from 1 June
the method to be followed for evaluating the factors which           1995 , without reference to a specific post. It thus appears
may have led to the emergence of the occupational disease in         that :
itself constitutes a source of discrimination .
                                                                     — the appointing authority, which was not informed of
                                                                         either the list of officials who had applied for the post at
                                                                         issue or of the qualifications required for that post, did
                                                                         not even have the opportunity itself to consider the
                                                                         comparative merits of candidates, as required under
                                                                         Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles
 Contargyris against the Council of the European Union              — the Council adopted a decision of appointment which
                        ( Case T-6/96 )                                  was not designed, under the conditions laid down in the
                                                                         Staff Regulations, to fill a vacancy in a specific post,
                          ( 96/C 77/35 )
                                                                    — the decisions rejecting the applicant's candidature and
                (Language of the case: French)                           dismissing his complaint were unlawfully adopted by the
                                                                         Secretary-General, since the appointing authority's
                                                                         powers to fill the post at issue could lawfully be exercised
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  only by the Council .
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles                      The applicant also takes the view that the terms in which the
Contargyris, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel          notice of vacancy in question was drafted were general and
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                   did not enable the appointing authority to consider the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          comparative merits of the various candidates . He also claims
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.               that the Secretary-General breached Articles 7 and 27 of the
                                                                     Staff Regulations by treating the need to establish a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        geographical balance as a determinant criterion.
— annul the decision rejecting his application for the               Finally, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of
    Grade A 1 post in DG J 'Economic and Social                     the duty to state reasons as well as misuse of powers in this
                                                                    case .
    Cohesion, Regional Policy, Social Policy, Employment,
    Social Dialogue, Education and Youth, Culture,
    Audio-Visual',
— annul the Council's decision appointing another
    candidate to Grade A 1 ,                                        Action brought on 22 January 1996 by Antonia Carparelli
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision assigning that other candidate to the
    post of Director-General of DG J,                                                          ( Case T-8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/36 )
— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
    Council of 7 November 1995 dismissing the applicant's                            (Language of the case: French)
    complaint,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     by Antonia Carparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
The applicant, who is a director in Directorate 1 of                the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Directorate-General G of the Council, for which he has been          at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.


title: Case T-422/03: Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Enviro Tech Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/35
Decision of the Board of     Action dismissed.                           —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
Appeal:                                                                        these proceedings.
Pleas in law:                Infringement of Article 8(1)(b),
                             (2)(c) and (5) of Regulation (EC)
                             No 40/94.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                         decisions rejecting the applicants’ request not to classify
                                                                         n-propyl bromide as a highly flammable substance (risk
                                                                         phrase R11) and reproductive toxicant category 2 (risk
                                                                         phrase R60) , but instead to classify it as a category 3/R62
                                                                         substance for reproductive toxicity and R18 substance for
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Enviro Tech                        flammability. In the alternative, the applicants requested
Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International Inc. against                 the Commission to exclude n-propyl bromide from the
      the Commission of the European Communities                         29th Adaptation to Technical Progress of Directive 67/548/
                                                                         EEC (1) until a proper and complete assessment of all the
                                                                         scientific data had been made by the Commission.
                       (Case T-422/03)
                        (2004/C 47/67)                                   In support of their application, the applicants claim that the
                                                                         Commission has violated the provision of Directive 67/
                                                                         548/EEC concerning the applicable testing methods and
                                                                         classification criteria for chemical substances. According to the
                 (Language of the case: English)                         applicant, the Commission has made a manifest error of
                                                                         assessment and an incorrect application of the testing methods
                                                                         for physico-chemical properties set forth in annex V, point A.9
                                                                         of Directive 67/548/EEC, the classification criteria for toxico-
                                                                         logical properties set forth in annex VI, point 4.2.3 of Directive
                                                                         67/548/EEC and the criterion of normal handling or use set
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                forth in annex VI, point 1.1 of Directive 67/548/EEC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 December 2003 by Enviro Tech
Europe Ltd., Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom and
Enviro tech International, Inc., Chicago, USA, represented by
Mr C. Mereu and Mr K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.                             The applicants also claim that the Commission has violated
                                                                         the applicants’ legitimate expectations that the Commission
                                                                         would assess the data submitted by the applicants in accord-
                                                                         ance with their obligations under Directive 67/548/EEC,
                                                                         diligently, impartially and by relevance to the relevant criteria
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         of Directive 67/548/EEC.
—    annul Commission Decisions D(2003) 430307 and
     D(2003) 430309 of 4 November 2003;
                                                                         The applicants invoke furthermore a violation of Article 95(3)
                                                                         EC Treaty. According to the applicants, the Commission failed
—    declare the Commission liable for damages suffered by               to consider and assess all the scientific data available as well as
     applicants to date and pending these proceedings as a               new developments based on scientific facts.
     result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct, including
     but not limited to its denial of applicant’s request
     and related adoption of the contested decision, and to
     compensate applicants for such damage in the provisional
     amount of EUR 350 000;                                              The applicants state that the contested decisions are based on
                                                                         the precautionary principle. According to the applicants, this
                                                                         principle only applies to risk assessment and cannot be used
—    declare the Commission liable for imminent losses and               in hazard assessments. Also, even if the principle should apply
     damages foreseeable with sufficient certainty, even if such         in this case, this would only be possible in the case of scientific
     losses and damages cannot be precisely assessed;                    uncertainty.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/36                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
The applicants finally claim that the Commission has violated                 The applicant submits that the reasoning for the contested
fundamental principles of Community law, such as the prin-                    decision is unsound and that that decision infringes the general
ciple of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, the prin-               principle of sound administration that reasons must be stated
ciple of independence and excellence of scientific advice, the                for decisions. The applicant also alleges infringement of
principle of proportionality, the principle of equal treatment                Article 5 of Appendix 2 to the Staff Regulations of Europol (1)
and the principle of sound administration. The applicants also                and infringement of the principle of due care.
claim that there was a lack of competence on the part of the
Commission and that the Commission misused its powers.
                                                                              (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                                applicable to Europol employees (OJ 1999 C 26, p. 7).
(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approxi-
    mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
    to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-
    stances (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967, p. 234).
                                                                              Action brought on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard Kein-
                                                                              horst against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia                                                 (Case T-428/03)
                        Smit against Europol
                                                                                (2004/C 47/69)
                           (Case T-423/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            (2004/C 47/68)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 20 December 2003 by Gerhard
                                                                              Keinhorst, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                              Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                     bourg.
First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis
and M.F. Baltussen.                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                                applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
1.    annul the implicit rejection by Europol of her objection                      him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
      to the decision of 19 May 2003 and, at the same time,
      annul the decision of 19 May 2003;                                      —     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
                                                                                14 April 2003, in so far as it:
2.    order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
      ing, in any event, the costs of the present proceedings.                      —    did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
                                                                                Step 3 upon recruitment,
                                                                                —    did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                by bringing forward the date of his promotion to A5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          and, if appropriate, promoting him to A4,
                                                                                —    limited the date on which the reclassification
The applicant’s application for the post of ‘Asset Administrator’                        decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
with Europol was rejected by the contested decision.                                     to 5 October 1995;


title: Case T-196/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Agreements entered into by the Walloon Region and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the airline Ryanair — Existence of an economic advantage — Application of the private investor in a market economy test)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-196/04) (1)

   (State aid - Agreements entered into by the Walloon Region and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the airline Ryanair - Existence of an economic advantage - Application of the private investor in a market economy test)
   (2009/C 32/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by D. Gleeson, A. Collins, SC, V. Power and D. McCann, Solicitors, and subsequently by V. Power and D. McCann, J. Swift, QC, J. Holmes, Barrister, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Association of European Airlines (AEA) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis and J. Heithecker, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi (OJ 2004 L 137, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2004/393/EC of 12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ryanair Ltd;

               3.

               Orders the Association of European Airlines (AEA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-461/12: Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Flughafen Lübeck v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/29

         Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Flughafen Lübeck v Commission
   (Case T-461/12)
   2012/C 379/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, J. Dammann de Chapto and T. Becker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2012 on the initiation of the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU concerning State aid No SA.27585 (2012/C) (2012/NN) and SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) (OJ 2012 C 241, p. 56) in so far as that decision initiates the formal investigation procedure in relation to the applicant’s schedule of airport charges in 2006;

               —

               annul the decision referred to above in so far as it requires the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) to reply to the information injunction contained in the Commission’s decision in relation to the applicant’s schedule of airport charges in 2006;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence of the Federal Republic of Germany

                           —

                           By the first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the rights of defence of the Federal Republic of Germany by initiating the formal investigation procedure in relation to the schedule of airport charges even though it was not the subject of the preliminary investigation procedure. The applicant submits in that respect that, according to the case-law of the Court, it can rely on the infringement of the rights of defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, leading to the annulment (in part) of the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination

                           —

                           By the second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination, in that it initiated the formal investigation procedure in relation to the schedule of charges without giving the Federal Republic of Germany or the applicant the opportunity during the preliminary investigation procedure to comment on its alleged unlawfulness under State aid law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and of Articles 4, 6 and 13(1) of Regulation No 659/1999

                           —

                           In the third plea, the applicant states that the Commission infringed Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU and Articles 4, 6 and 13(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, in that it failed to conduct the two-stage State aid control procedure laid down in those provisions — consisting of the preliminary investigation procedure and the formal investigation procedure — in respect of the schedule of charges.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In the context of the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it takes the view that the schedule of charges confers State aid. According to the applicant, the Commission was not entitled to infer the selectivity of the schedule of charges from the fact that the schedule applied only to airport users. Further, the applicant takes the view that the Commission should not have found that the schedule of charges was a State measure, as the majority of shares in the applicant were privately owned at the time when the schedule of charges was issued.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons

                           —

                           In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission also infringed the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that it failed to state adequate reasons for the initiation of the formal investigation procedure in relation to the 2006 schedule of charges.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(2) and (3) of Regulation No 659/1999

                           —

                           In the context of the sixth plea, the applicant states that the Commission infringed Article 10(2) and (3) of Regulation No 659/1999 in that it issued an information injunction, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, to the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to the schedule of charges without first sending the Federal Republic of Germany a simple request for information, as provided for in Article 10(2) of Regulation No 659/1999.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2004 in Case C-406/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Substances that deplete the ozone layer — Incomplete implementation)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 26 October 2004
   in Case C-406/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Substances that deplete the ozone layer - Incomplete implementation)
   (2004/C 314/02)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-406/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 September 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and M. Shotter) and Ireland (Agents: F. O'Dubhghaill and D. O'Hagan, assisted by D. McGrath) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J. Makarczyk, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to provide the reports referred to in Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl bromide and to define the minimum qualification requirements for the personnel involved in accordance with Artic1e 17(2) of the Regulation, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) and (2) of the Regulation;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/97, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98: Alzetta Mauro and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Transport of goods by road — State aid — Action for annulment — Whether trade between Member States affected and competition distorted — Conditions for a derogation from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) — New aid or existing aid — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 211/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         22.7.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1. Article 2 of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997
                                                                               concerning aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region
                                                                               (Italy) to road haulage companies in the Region is annulled in so
                          of 15 June 2000
                                                                               far as it declares unlawful aid granted as from 1 July 1990 to
                                                                               undertakings carrying out exclusively local, regional or national
in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97,                        transport;
T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/97, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and
T-23/98: Alzetta Mauro and Others v Commission of the
                                                                          2. Article 5 of Decision 98/182 is annulled in so far as it obliges
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                               the Italian Republic to recover that aid;
(Transport of goods by road — State aid — Action for                      3. For the rest, the application is dismissed;
annulment — Whether trade between Member States affec-
ted and competition distorted — Conditions for a derogation
from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(1) of the EC                 4. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) — New
aid or existing aid — Principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations — Principle of proportionality — Statement of                (1) OJ No C 55, 20. 2. 1998; No C 72, 7. 3. 1998; and No C 113,
                              reasons)                                        11. 4. 1998.
                          (2000/C 211/36)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97,
T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/97, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/
98: Alzetta Mauro, residing in Montereale Valcellina (Italy) and              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
31 others, represented by A. Pili of the Pordenone Bar and A.
Barone and G. Pezzano of the Rome Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du                                        of 15 June 2000
Fort Rheinsheim, Masotti Srl, established at Feletto Umberto
(Italy), and 30 others, represented by R. Petiziol and                    in Case T-211/98: F v Commission of the European
A. Pergolese, of the Udine Bar, Anna Maria Baldo, residing in                                        Communities (1)
Cervignano de Friuli (Italy) and 53 others, Musso Amedeo,
residing in Rivignano (Italy), represented by V. Cinque and
L. Candriella, of the Udine Bar, Sutes SpA, established in Udine,         (Officials — Suspension — Absence of any prior hearing —
and 33 others, Fabis Carlo & Co. Snc, established in Pavia di                             Action for annulment and damages)
Udine (Italy), Franco D’Odorico, residing in Capoformido
(Italy), Fiorindo Birri, residing in Manzano, Italy, Maria Cecilia
                                                                                (2000/C 211/37)
Framalicco, residing in Ampezzo (Italy), Autotrasporti di Viola
Claudio & Co. Snc, established in Cerpeneto-Pozzuolo del
Friuli (Italy), represented by C. Mussato, of the Udine Bar,
Pietro Stagno, residing in Trieste (Italy), Fabrizio Cernecca,                                 (Language of the case: French)
residing in Trieste, Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali
Cossutta Snc, established in Trieste, Giuseppe Camaur, residing
in Cormons (Italy), Cointra Transport and Trade Co. Srl,                  In Case T-211/98: F, an official of the Commission of the
established in Ronchi dei Legionari (Italy), Autotrasporti                European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
Silvano Zottich, established in Trieste, Zootrans Snc, estab-             G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
lished in Passagio di Betona (Italy), Pauletic Antonio Succ. di           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de
Pauletic Igor, residing in Trieste, represented by M. Clarich and         Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v Commission of the Euro-
A. Giadrossi, of the Trieste Bar, supported by the Italian                pean Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) —
Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, O. Fiumara, and, at the hearing,             application, first, for annulment of the decision of 16 Decem-
G. Aiello), against the Commission of the European Communi-               ber 1998 by which the appointing authority suspended the
ties (Agents: P.F. Nemitz, P. Stancarelli and M. Moretto)                 applicant from his duties and, second, for compensation for
— application for the annulment of Commission Decision                    the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant
98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning aid granted by the                   as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to road haulage companies            (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and
in the Region (OJ 1998 L 66, p. 18) — the Court of First                  A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in
of R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a                 which it:
Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh, and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment              1. Annuls the decision of 16 December 1998 by which the
on 15 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                    appointing authority suspended the applicant from his duties;


title: Case C-108/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete (Free movement of goods — Public health — Selling of contact lenses via the Internet — National legislation authorising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supply shops — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society — Electronic commerce)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete
   (Case C-108/09) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Public health - Selling of contact lenses via the Internet - National legislation authorising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supply shops - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society - Electronic commerce)
   2011/C 30/03
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.

      Defendant: ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC and of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Marketing of contact lenses on the internet — National rules reserving the sale of contact lenses to shops selling medical supplies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The national rules relating to the selling of contact lenses fall within the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), since they concern the act of selling such lenses via the Internet. On the other hand, the national rules relating to the supply of contact lenses are not covered by that directive.
   Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU, and Directive 2000/31, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises the selling of contact lenses only in shops which specialise in medical devices.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2000 in Case C-421/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC — Restrictions on the exercise of activities as an architect according to the definition of the profession in the Member State in which the relevant qualification was obtained)

text:
24.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                   C 95/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15) ‘may not pursue in Spain
                                                                             activities other than those which they are authorised to pursue
                                                                             in their country of origin on the basis of the qualifications
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    awarded by the latter, unless they collaborate with another
                                                                             member of the profession who is authorised to pursue those
                                                                             activities and who holds a qualification which is likewise
                      of 23 November 2000                                    recognised under Spanish law’, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of that
                                                                             directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
in Case C-421/98: Commission of the European Communi-                        Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               teur) and P. Jann, Judges, S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                             Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November 2000, in
                                                                             which it:
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC — Restrictions
on the exercise of activities as an architect according to the               1.    Declares that, by providing, in Article 10(2) of Real Decreto
definition of the profession in the Member State in which                          1081/1989 of 28 August 1989, that persons holding
            the relevant qualification was obtained)                               qualifications in architecture awarded by another Member State
                                                                                and recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June
                                                                                1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and
                           (2001/C 95/01)                                          other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including
                                                                                measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
                                                                                establishment and freedom to provide services, may not pursue
                                                                                in Spain activities other than those which they are authorised to
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                                 pursue in their country of origin on the basis of the qualifications
                                                                                awarded by the latter, unless they collaborate with another
                                                                                member of the profession who is authorised to pursue those
                                                                                activities and who holds a qualification which is likewise
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             recognised under Spanish law, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of that directive;
In Case C-421/98, Commission of the European Communities                     2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(Agents: I. Martı́nez del Peral and M. B. Mongin) v Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s Gallego) — application for a
declaration that, by providing, in Article 10(2) of Real Decreto
1081/1989 of 28 August 1989 (Boletı́n Oficial del Estado
No 214 of 7 September 1989, p. 28449), that holders of                       (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
qualifications in architecture awarded by another Member
State and recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of
10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in
architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective
exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide


28.7.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 212/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-98/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-124/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 212/37)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/38)
By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from           By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-98/00: Commission of the European           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v Republic of Greece.                                  the register of Case C-124/00: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Case F-54/10: Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Verheyden v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/43

         Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Verheyden v Commission
   (Case F-54/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luc Verheyden (Angera, Italy) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for the same treatment as that accorded to the applicants in Cases F-5/05 and F-7/05

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 16 July 2009;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the express decision of 29 March 2010 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on 28 December 2009;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3 000 in compensation;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-98/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 27 February 2013 — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 27 February 2013 — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA
   (Case C-98/13)
   2013/C 129/17
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin Blomqvist

      Defendants: Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘distribution to the public’ in a Member State of copyright-protected goods if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of the goods to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the goods are protected by copyright, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the Member State where the goods are delivered?

               2.

               Is Article 5(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (2) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘[use] in the course of trade’ of a trade mark in a Member State if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of goods bearing the trade mark to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the trade mark is registered, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the State in question?

               3.

               Is Article 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (3) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘[use] in the course of trade’ of a trade mark in a Member State if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of goods bearing the Community trade mark to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in a Member State, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the State in question?

               4.

               Is Article 2(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (4) to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condition for the application in a Member State of the provisions on the prevention of release for free circulation and the destruction of ‘pirated goods’ that ‘distribution to the public’ must have occurred in the Member State under the same criteria as indicated in the answer to question 1?

               5.

               Is Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condition for the application in a Member State of the provisions on the prevention of release for free circulation and the destruction of ‘counterfeit goods’ that ‘[use] in the course of trade’ must have occurred in the Member State under the same criteria as indicated in the answers to questions 2 and 3?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

      (3)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7.


               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/60

         Removal from the Register of Case T-283/99 (1)

   (2004/C 262/109)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-283/99, Vlutter Handelsonderneming B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case T-312/05: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Commission v Alexiadou (Arbitration clause — Contract concerning a project for the development of a technology for the production of waterproof leathers — Failure to perform the contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Default interest — Referral back to the General Court after annulment — Default proceedings)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Commission v Alexiadou
      (Case T-312/05) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Contract concerning a project for the development of a technology for the production of waterproof leathers - Failure to perform the contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Default interest - Referral back to the General Court after annulment - Default proceedings)
      (2010/C 288/54)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

         Defendant: Efrosyni Alexiadou (Saloniki, Greece) (represented by: C. Matellas, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order for reimbursement of EUR 23 036,31 advanced by the Commission to the defendant under a contract concerning a project for developing a technology for the production of waterproof leathers (Contract G1ST-CT-2002-50227), together with default interest.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Orders Efrosyni Alexiadou to repay the sum of EUR 23 036,31 to the European Commission, together with default interest:

                              —

                              at the rate of 5.25 % per annum from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005;

                              —

                              at the statutory annual rate applicable under Belgian law, with a ceiling of 5.25 % per annum, from 1 September 2005 to payment in full of the debt;

                  2.

                  Orders Efrosyni Alexiadou to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2003 in Case T-7/01: Norman Pyres v Commission of the European Communities (Member of the temporary staff — Extension of contract — Term)

text:
C 101/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       26.4.2003
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, B. Weggenmann
                        of 6 February 2003                                 and C. Røhl Søberg), the intervener before the Court of First
                                                                           Instance being Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber, established in
in Case T-7/01: Norman Pyres v Commission of the                           Homburg (Germany), represented by R. Lange: Action brought
                   European Communities ( 1)                               against the decision of the Third Chamber Board of Appeal of
                                                                           the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
(Member of the temporary staff — Extension of contract —                   Marks and Designs) of 12 February 2001 (Case R 251/2000-
                                Term)                                      3), concerning the registration of the sign MYSTERY as a
                                                                           Community trade mark, which was opposed by the national
                          (2003/C 101/56)                                  trade mark Mixery, the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
                   (Language of the case: English)                         rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges, Registrar: D. Christensen,
                                                                           Administrator, has given a judgment on 15 January 2003, in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-7/01, Norman Pyres, former member of the
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-                 1.     Dismisses the application;
ties, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vander-
sanden and L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                       2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(Agent: J. Currall): Application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s decision to extend the applicant’s temporary staff
contract for a term limited to six months, the Court of First              (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
Instance (P. Mengozzi, Single Judge); J. Plingers, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February 2003,
in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                                of 13 February 2003
                                                                           in Case T-333/01: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   European Communities ( 1)
                        of 15 January 2003                                 (OCT — Action for damages — Duty of publication and
                                                                                control — Causal link)
in Case T-99/01: Mystery drinks GmbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                                          (2003/C 101/58)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
national trade mark Mixery — Application for Community                                         (Language of the case: French)
word mark MYSTERY — Proof of use of earlier mark —
Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                             No 40/94)
                                                                           In Case T-333/01, Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (French
                          (2003/C 101/57)                                  Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis, lawyer, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and B. Mar-
                                                                           tenczuk): Application for compensation for damage allegedly
                                                                           suffered by the applicant because of alleged maladministration
In Case T-99/01, Mystery drinks GmbH, in judicial liquidation,             by the Commission in the application of decisions on the
established in Eppertshausen (Germany), represented by T. Je-              association of the overseas countries and territories, the Court
staedt, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, v Office for                 of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,


title: Joined Cases C-454/12 and C-455/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Pro Med Logistik GmbH (C-454/12) v Finanzamt Dresden-Süd and Eckard Pongratz, acting as the receiver appointed to deal with the bankruptcy of Karin Oertel (C-455/12) v Finanzamt Würzburg mit Außenstelle Ochsenfurt (Request for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 12(3) — Annex H, category 5 — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(1) and (2) — Annex III, point 5 — Principle of neutrality — Transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage — Legislation of a Member State applying different rates of VAT to transport by taxi and to transport by minicab)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Pro Med Logistik GmbH (C-454/12) v Finanzamt Dresden-Süd and Eckard Pongratz, acting as the receiver appointed to deal with the bankruptcy of Karin Oertel (C-455/12) v Finanzamt Würzburg mit Außenstelle Ochsenfurt
   (Joined Cases C-454/12 and C-455/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 12(3) - Annex H, category 5 - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(1) and (2) - Annex III, point 5 - Principle of neutrality - Transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage - Legislation of a Member State applying different rates of VAT to transport by taxi and to transport by minicab))
   2014/C 112/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pro Med Logistik GmbH (C-454/12), Eckard Pongratz, acting as the receiver appointed to deal with the bankruptcy of Karin Oertel (C-455/12)

      Defendants: Finanzamt Dresden-Süd (C-454/12), Finanzamt Würzburg mit Außenstelle Ochsenfurt (C-455/12)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Germany — Interpretation of Article 98(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) in conjunction with point 5 of Annex III thereto, and of the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a), as amended, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) in conjunction with point 5 of Annex H thereto, as amended — Principle of neutrality — Legislation of a Member State providing for a difference in treatment for VAT purposes between supplies of services which are identical from the consumer’s point of view and which meet the same needs — Transport of patients by taxi treated differently to the transport of patients by minicab.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Having regard to the principle of fiscal neutrality, the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, read in conjunction with Annex H, category 5, thereto, and Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III, point 5, thereto, must be interpreted as not precluding two types of services for the local transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, namely transport by taxi and transport by minicab, from being subject to different rates of value added tax, one a reduced rate and the other the standard rate, in so far as, first, by reason of the different statutory requirements to which those two types of transport are subject, the activity of local transport of passengers by taxi constitutes a concrete and specific aspect of the category of services of transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, covered by category 5 and point 5 of the respective annexes to those directives and, secondly, those differences have a decisive influence on the decision of the average user to use one such service or the other. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the position in the cases in the main proceedings;

               2)

               By contrast, having regard to the principle of fiscal neutrality, the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2001/4, read in conjunction with Annex H, category 5, thereto, and Article 98(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Annex III, point 5, thereto, must be interpreted as precluding two types of services for the local transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, namely transport by taxi and transport by minicab, from being subject to different rates of value added tax in the case where, under a special agreement which applies indiscriminately to the taxi undertakings and minicab undertakings which are parties to it, the transport of passengers by taxi is not a concrete and specific aspect of the transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage, and where that activity carried out under that agreement is considered to be similar, from the point of view of the average user, to the activity of local transport of passengers by minicab, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Case C-338/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi v Direction des résidents à l’étranger et des services généraux

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi v Direction des résidents à l’étranger et des services généraux
   (Case C-338/11)
   2011/C 269/64
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi

      Defendant: Direction des résidents à l’étranger et des services généraux

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-246/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in Turn- und Sportunion Waldburg v Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(B)(b) and (C)(a) — Exemption of leasing and letting of immovable property — Right of option in favour of taxable persons — Non-profit-making sports clubs — Conditions)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-246/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in Turn- und Sportunion Waldburg v Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(B)(b) and (C)(a) - Exemption of leasing and letting of immovable property - Right of option in favour of taxable persons - Non-profit-making sports clubs - Conditions)
   (2006/C 60/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-246/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 26 May 2004, received at the Court on 10 June 2004, in the proceedings between Turn- und Sportunion Waldburg and Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Member States, when giving their taxable persons the right to opt for taxation under Article 13(C) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, may make a distinction by reference to types of transactions or groups of taxable persons provided that they observe the general objectives and principles of the Sixth Directive, in particular the principle of fiscal neutrality and the requirement of correct, straightforward and uniform application of the exemptions provided for;

               2.

               It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation which, by exempting generally the transactions of non-profit-making sports clubs, restricts their right to opt for taxation of leasing and letting transactions exceeds the discretion conferred on the Member States, having regard in particular to the principle of fiscal neutrality and the requirement of correct, straightforward and uniform application of the exemptions provided for.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-5/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-5/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 98/44/EC - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/34)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-5/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and C. Schmidt) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 9 January 2004 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, K. Schiemann and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Case T-194/08: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Cattin v Commission (Non-contractual liability — EDF — List of exporters eligible to receive payment of debts owed to them by the Central African Republic — Not included on the list — Limitation period — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/37

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Cattin v Commission
   (Case T-194/08) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - EDF - List of exporters eligible to receive payment of debts owed to them by the Central African Republic - Not included on the list - Limitation period - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 37/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: R. Cattin & Cie (Bimbo, Central African Republic); and Yves Cattin (Cadiz, Spain) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, Agent)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following a Commission decision not to include them on the list of exporters eligible to receive payment, via funds of the European Development Fund (EDF), in respect of the debts owed to them by a State body of the Central African Republic

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               R. Cattin & Cie and Yves Cattin shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-480/04: Action brought on 14 December 2004 by Chr. Muller Touw B.V. and A&C Braid and Rope Co. Pvt. Ltd against the Council of the European Union

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/29

         Action brought on 14 December 2004 by Chr. Muller Touw B.V. and A&C Braid and Rope Co. Pvt. Ltd against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-480/04)
   (2005/C 57/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 December 2004 by Chr. Muller Touw B.V, having its registered office in Elst (Netherlands), and A&C Braid and Rope Co. Pvt. Ltd, having its registered office in Rania (India), represented by John Wolfs, advocaat.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Regulation No 1736/2004 in so far as it concerns deliveries from A&C in India;

               2.

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Chr. Muller Touw, which has its registered office in the Netherlands, supplies raw materials to A&C Braid and Rope in India, which processes those raw materials into rope for export to the EC. The applicants seek the annulment of Regulation No 1736/2004 establishing a definitive anti-dumping duty (1) to the extent to which it applies to them.
   In support of their application the applicants submit that there is here no question of material injury, as required by Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 384/96. (2) The applicants submit that they manufacture rope for private individual use and that is not suitable for industrial use or for use at sea, as stated in the contested regulation, and that their market share is negligible.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 of 4 October 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India (OJ 2004 L 311, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-428/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 October 2009 — Union Syndicale Solidaires Isère v Premier ministre, Ministre du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministre de la santé et des sports

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 October 2009 — Union Syndicale ‘Solidaires Isère’ v Premier ministre, Ministre du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministre de la santé et des sports
   (Case C-428/09)
   2010/C 24/40
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Union Syndicale ‘Solidaires Isère’

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre du travail, des relations sociales, de la famille, de la solidarité et de la ville, Ministre de la santé et des sports

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2003/88/EC (1) apply to occasional or seasonal staff carrying out a maximum of 80 days of work a year in holiday and leisure activity centres?

               2.

               If this question is answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           In view of the purpose of the Directive which, as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, is to lay down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time, must Article 17 thereof be interpreted as allowing:

                                       —

                                       under Article 17(1), the occasional or seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts to be regarded as an activity for which ‘on account of the specific characteristics of the activity concerned, the duration of the working time is not measured and/or predetermined or can be determined by the workers themselves’, or

                                       —

                                       under Article 17(3)(b), the occasional or seasonal activity of persons with educational commitment contracts to be regarded as ‘security and surveillance activities requiring a permanent presence in order to protect property and persons’?

                           (b)

                           in the latter case, should the conditions laid down in Article 17(2), in terms of ‘equivalent periods of compensatory rest’ or ‘appropriate protection’ to be afforded to the workers concerned, be regarded as being satisfied by a rule restricting the activity of a person with the contracts in question to 80 days of work a year in holiday and leisure activity centres?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299, p. 9).


5.5.2001              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 134/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-458/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-106/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/25)                                                    (2001/C 134/27)
By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of         By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of, the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-458/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-106/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-446/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/26)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-342/00 (1)
By order of 15 February 2001 the President of the Court of                                (2001/C 134/28)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-446/99: Commission of the              By order of 6 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                   the register of Case C-342/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.