title: Case C-170/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Maurice Robert Josse Marie Ghislain Lippens, Gilbert Georges Henri Mittler, Jean Paul François Caroline Votron v Hendrikus Cornelis Kortekaas, Kortekaas Entertainment Marketing BV, Kortekaas Pensioen BV, Dirk Robbard De Kat, Johannes Hendrikus Visch, Euphemia Joanna Bökkerink, Laminco GLD N-A, Ageas NV, formerly Fortis NV (Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 — Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters — Matters covered — Hearing by the court of a Member State of a witness who is a party in the main proceedings residing in another Member State — Possibility to summon a party as a witness before the competent court in accordance with the law of its Member State)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/8

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Maurice Robert Josse Marie Ghislain Lippens, Gilbert Georges Henri Mittler, Jean Paul François Caroline Votron v Hendrikus Cornelis Kortekaas, Kortekaas Entertainment Marketing BV, Kortekaas Pensioen BV, Dirk Robbard De Kat, Johannes Hendrikus Visch, Euphemia Joanna Bökkerink, Laminco GLD N-A, Ageas NV, formerly Fortis NV
      (Case C-170/11) (1)

      (Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters - Matters covered - Hearing by the court of a Member State of a witness who is a party in the main proceedings residing in another Member State - Possibility to summon a party as a witness before the competent court in accordance with the law of its Member State)
      (2012/C 331/12)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Maurice Robert Josse Marie Ghislain Lippens, Gilbert Georges Henri Mittler, Jean Paul François Caroline Votron

         Defendants: Hendrikus Cornelis Kortekaas, Kortekaas Entertainment Marketing BV, Kortekaas Pensioen BV, Dirk Robbard De Kat, Johannes Hendrikus Visch, Euphemia Joanna Bökkerink, Laminco GLD N-A, Ageas NV, formerly Fortis NV

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) — Score — Hearing of witnesses by Netherlands courts of witnesses who are also parties to the main proceedings but not resident in the Netherlands — Domestic procedural law

         Operative part of the judgment

      The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, in particular Article 1(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent court of a Member State which wishes to hear as a witness a party residing in another Member State, has the option, in order to perform such a hearing, to summon that party before it and hear him in accordance with the law of its Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case F-141/11: Action brought on 23 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/25

         Action brought on 23 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-141/11)
   2012/C 65/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of salary arrears for the period from September to December 2010 and January 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul each of the five following decisions — whatever the form in which they were adopted, issued by or, in any event, attributable to the Commission, and whether in whole or in part — rejecting the claims set out in the following five requests: (1.a) the decision rejecting the claims set out in the request of 5 October 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.b) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 2 November 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.c) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 6 December 2010 sent to the appointing authority; (1.d) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 3 January 2011 sent to the appointing authority; (1.e) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the claims set out in the request of 3 February 2011 sent to the appointing authority;

               —

               Declare, in so far as necessary, that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354, as registered on 28 February 2011;

               —

               Annul the following five decisions — each of which was issued by or is in any event attributable to the Commission — rejecting the following complaints made by the applicant, whether those decisions rejected the complaints in whole or in part: (3.a) the decision rejecting the complaint of 26 April 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 5 October 2010; (3.b) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 23 May 2011; (3.c) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 20 June 2011; (3.d) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 24 June 2011; (3.e) the decision rejecting, whether in whole or in part, the complaint of 23 July 2011;

               —

               Annul Note HR.D.21MB/ac Ares(2011) 941139 of 8 August 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-273/09: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2012 — Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ v European Commission (Competition — Restrictive practices — Abuse of dominant position — Rejection of a complaint — Legitimate interest — Community interest — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/27

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2012 — Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ v European Commission
   (Case T-273/09) (1)

   (Competition - Restrictive practices - Abuse of dominant position - Rejection of a complaint - Legitimate interest - Community interest - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2012/C 151/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by: L. Misson, G. Ernes and A. Pel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Derenne, lawyer)
   supported by
   Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), (Zurich, Switzerland), (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 3916 of 12 May 2009, taken pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and rejecting, for lack of legitimate interest and lack of Community interest, the complaint submitted by the applicant concerning the infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the Federazione italiana giuoco calcio, the Comitato olimpico nazionale italiano, the Union of European Football Associations and the Fédération Internationale de football association, in the context of the sanctions imposed on Juventus Football Club SpA de Turin (Italy) (Case COMP/39.464 — Supporters Juventus Turin v FIGC-CONI-UEFA-FIFA)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Associazione ‘Giùlemanidallajuve’ shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) shall pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004 in Case C-210/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB, Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Article 8 — Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use — Validity — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC — Compatibility of national legislation laying down the same prohibition)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 14 December 2004
   in Case C-210/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB, Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health
       (1)

   (Directive 2001/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Article 8 - Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use - Validity - Interpretation of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Compatibility of national legislation laying down the same prohibition)
   (2005/C 45/14)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-210/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), made by decision of 17 April 2003, received at the Court on 15 May 2003, in the proceedings between The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB, Swedish Match UK Ltd and Secretary of State for Health – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and subsequently M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

               2.

               Where a national measure prohibits the marketing of tobacco products for oral use in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of Directive 2001/37, there is no need to ascertain separately whether that national measure complies with Articles 28 EC and 29 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case T-552/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Out of time — Inadmissibility — Claim for damages — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council
   (Case T-552/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Out of time - Inadmissibility - Claim for damages - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 414/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was included in the list of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case C-388/01: Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
8.12.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 348/15
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                          Eerste Aanleg te Veurne by judgment of 4 May 2001 in
                                                                          criminal proceedings brought against Klaus Hans Fritz
                                                                                Brügge; civil party: Benedikt Leliaert
                                                                                (Case C-385/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 348/27)
In this action the Commission is seeking a declaration of a
failure in two respects to comply with the provisions of the
Sixth Directive: first, a failure to comply with the first and            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
third sentences of Article 12(3) (a) thereof, inasmuch as France          European Communities by judgment of 4 May 2001 by the
is applying a reduced rate contrary to that provision and,                Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Veurne (Court of First Instance,
secondly, a failure to comply with Article 12(3) (b) concerning           Veurne), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 October
the procedure for authorisation of application of a reduced               2001, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings brought
rate on supplies of natural gas and electricity.                          against Klaus Hans Fritz Brügge; civil party: Benedikt Leliaert,
                                                                          on the following question:
—     On the consultation procedure (Article 12(3)(b)): as long           Does application of Article 54 of the Schengen Agreement of
      as France had not replied to the request for additional             19 June 1990 allow the Belgian Openbaar Ministerie (Public
      information, the Commission was unable to take a                    Prosecutor’s Department) to require a German national to
      definitive view. In the absence of full information, despite        appear before the Belgian criminal courts and allow those
      a request to that effect, the Commission was entitled to            courts to sentence that national in the case where the German
      take the view that the French authorities had withdrawn             Public Prosecutor’s Department, on the basis of the same facts,
      their request. Consequently, by not forwarding the infor-           has offered that German national the opportunity to make
      mation requested by the Commission in order to enable               payment in an out-of-court settlement, which that national
      it to take a decision under Article 12(32)(b), France has           has accepted?
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.
—     On the substance of the measure (Article 12(3)(a)): if
      the supply agreement is regarded as a specific service
      representing fixed costs as distinct from the actual supply
      of energy, the reduced rate would then have no legal basis
      in Article 12(3)(a) which refers to Annex H and in which            Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission
      the agreement or the supply of energy does not feature.             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Moreover, there is no warrant for that reduced rate in
      Article 12(3)(b) which merely mentions ‘supplies of
                                                                                (Case C-388/01)
      natural gas and electricity’. If, on the other hand, the
      agreement to supply is viewed as forming part of the
      actual supply of energy, then France is obliged to apply                                   (2001/C 348/28)
      the same rate to a transaction relating to the same asset
      in accordance with the principle of a single rate under
      Article 12(3)(a). Thus, under Article 12(3)(1b) it is then
      the whole of the transaction (agreement and supply)                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      which should be subject to the same reduced rate.                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 October
      Consequently, notwithstanding all the distinctions which            2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      France has sought to draw between the agreement to                  represented by Marian Patakia and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
      supply and the actual supply of energy, and however                 Agents.
      such agreement maybe described, France cannot but be
      found to have failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 12(3)(a) and (b) of the Sixth VAT Directive.                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —    Declare that, by maintaining in force discriminatory
                                                                               charges for admission to public museums, monuments,
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                       galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens in Italy,
                                                                               granted by local or decentralised authorises which only
                                                                               favour Italian nationals or residents within the territory
                                                                               of the administrative authority running the cultural sites
                                                                               in question and who are aged over 60 or 65 years, to the
                                                                               exclusion of tourists who are nationals of other Member
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.12.2001
      States or of persons who are not resident in such areas,                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      despite fulfilling the same age requirement, the Italian                Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     down basic safety standards for the protection of the
      Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty.                                    health of workers and the general public against the
                                                                              dangers arising from ionising radiation (1), the Portuguese
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              Articles 55(1) of that Directive,
                                                                        —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive,
Granting advantageous admission charges only to Italian
nationals constitutes a restriction on the right to have access
to services to which tourists visiting Italian archaeological and       —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
cultural sites are entitled.
The granting of advantageous admission charges to certain
categories of visitors, in this case to those aged over 60 or           Pleas in law and main arguments
65 years, on the basis of their residence within the municipality
in which the cultural site is located, constitutes indirect
discrimination on grounds of nationality since in the end it
affects mainly non-Italian Community tourists, whose                    The provisions of the third paragraph of Article 161 and the
exclusion from benefiting from the lower charges constitutes            first paragraph of Article 192 of the EAEC Treaty require
the disguised objective.                                                Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose
                                                                        directives addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                        expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. Despite that
                                                                        period having expired (13 May 2000) the Portuguese Republic
The lower charges offered by the municipal museums thus                 has still not brought into force the provisions necessary to
infringe Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as they           transpose Directive 96/29/Euratom into its legal system.
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 314, p. 20.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                             Republic
                          (Case C-389/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                         (2001/C 348/29)                                                            Republic
                                                                                (Case C-390/01)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                         (2001/C 348/30)
on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic as brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by António Catiros, acting as Agent, with an
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and            Guerrero, Wagner Centre.


title: Case T-208/99: Action brought on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bangemann against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 314/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.10.1999
Action brought on 10 September 1999 by Léon Rappe                         Action brought on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bange-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          mann against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-202/99)                                                           (Case T-208/99)
                        (1999/C 314/29)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 10 September 1999 by Léon                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Rappe, residing at Orp-Jauche (Belgium), represented by                  Communities on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bangemann,
Jean-Noël Louis, Greta Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                of Melle (France), represented by Wolfgang Knapp and Till
Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in               Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue               & Hamilton, 23 Rue de la Loi, Brussels.
de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the                     (a) annul the Council’s decision of 9 July 1999 on the referral
     applicant to grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 pro-                   of the applicant’s case to the Court of Justice of the
     motion procedure;                                                       European Communities pursuant to the third subpara-
                                                                             graph of Article 213(2) EC;
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
     for the material and non-material damage suffered by him,           (b) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     in such sum as it shall deem fair and equitable, without
     prejudice to any measures which the institution may be
     required to take pursuant to Article 233 of the EC Treaty;          Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         On 9 July 1999 the Council of the European Union (‘the
                                                                         defendant’) adopted a decision to refer the case of Mr
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Bangemann (‘the applicant’) to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities pursuant to the final sentence of the
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Articles 43 and 45          third subparagraph of Article 213(2) of the Treaty establishing
of the Staff Regulations of officials. He maintains that, as at          the European Community and the corresponding provisions
the date of assessment of the comparative merits of the                  of the ECSC and EAEC Treaties (1). That decision was formally
candidates, his personal file did not contain any definitive             served on the applicant by letter from the defendant of even
report concerning the duties performed by him as an adminis-             date.
trator between 1995 and 1997, and that, consequently, neither
the Promotion Committee nor the appointing authority was                 The applicant maintains that:
in a position properly to compare the merits of the applicant
with those of the other officials eligible for promotion. He             — the contested decision should not have been adopted
also maintains that, in adopting the contested decision and                  without the applicant first having been heard;
expressly rejecting his complaint, the appointing authority
failed to provide him with the information necessary in order
                                                                         — the contested decision is based on an infringement of
for him to be able to understand the justification for that
                                                                             Article 213(2) EC, inasmuch as he had not taken up the
decision; the defendant thereby disregarded Articles 25 and 26
                                                                             appointment offered to him with the Telefónica Company;
of the Staff Regulations as well as the rights of the defence and
the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
                                                                         — he had not committed any breach of his duty under
                                                                             Article 213 EC to behave with discretion;
The applicant further asserts that the defendant was under an
obligation to draw up a report on his merits prior to
                                                                         — as a result of the contested decision, and in particular the
31 December 1997, covering the period from 1995 to 1997;
                                                                             unparalleled publication thereof in that form, he has
however, the definitive report has still not been drawn up.
                                                                             suffered non-material damage, and his reputation has
He accordingly claims that, as a result of that breach of
                                                                             been destroyed in consequence of the defendant having
administrative duty, which constitutes a failure by the adminis-
                                                                             prejudged the matter;
tration to comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare
and interests of officials and to act fairly, he has suffered
material damage, having been robbed of his chances of                    — as a result of the contested decision, he has also suffered
promotion, and also non-material damage arising from the                     material damage.
uncertainty and worry concerning his professional future and
the recognition of his merits; consequently, the defendant               (1) OJ L 192 of 24 July 1999, p. 55.
should be ordered to pay him compensation.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01: Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Member of the auxiliary staff — Conference interpreter — Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 June 2004
   in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01: Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Member of the auxiliary staff - Conference interpreter - Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants)
   (2004/C 228/79)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01: Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin (Germany), represented, in Case T-153/01, initially by G. Vandersanden and D. Dugois, then by G. Vandersanden, and, in Case T-323/01, by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially, F. Cloutche-Duvieusart and M. Langer, then F. Cloutche-Duvieusart and D. Martin) — application for, first, annulment of the Commission' letters of 13 and 23 February 2001 informing the applicant that it was no longer possible to engage conference interpreters of more than 65 years of age and, second, damages, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 June 2003, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application in Case T-153/01 as inadmissible;

               2.

               In Case T-323/01, annuls the decision of 23 February 2001;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-323/01;

               4.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-153/01;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs in Case T-323/01.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.


title: Case C-504/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic lodged on 21 October 2010 — TANOARCH s.r.o. v Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic
   (Case C-504/10)
   2011/C 46/02
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TANOARCH s.r.o.

      Defendant: Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax permit a provision whereby a taxpayer may deduct, from his own tax liability, tax on goods and services which he uses for the purposes of his business as a taxpayer, if that tax has been charged to him by another inland taxpayer, on goods and services supplied or to be supplied, in circumstances where the plaintiff, in his capacity as co-applicant in respect of an invention on which a patent has yet to be granted, already owns, as a matter of law, the right independently to use the invention which is the subject-matter of the patent as a whole?

               2.

               Does the Sixth Directive permit the interpretation that a taxpayer’s existing legal right independently to use a patent results in the legal impossibility of using a service for supplies of goods and services as a taxpayer, and that this results in the legal consumption of the service acquired?

               3.

               Is the abuse of a taxpayer’s right to deduct input VAT under the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 21 February 2006, Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others, affected by the fact that, regarding the substance of the matter, the invention has not yet been registered as a patent and only parts thereof are operated?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1


               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/70

         (2006/C 294/136)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

      OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

      OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

      OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

      OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

      OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-294/08: Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-294/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/68

      Language of the case: Czech

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-240/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of bars with four circles)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/45

         Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of bars with four circles)
   (Case T-240/15)
   (2015/C 236/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of bars with four circles) — Application for registration No 12 551 867

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2015 in Case R 1602/2014-1

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application on the basis of the sufficient intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for; order the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 12 551 867, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 of the International Classification in its entirety;

               —

               order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM and the corresponding expenses.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case F-104/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Arpaillange and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification — Former individual experts — Diplomas — Professional experience — Plea of illegality)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Arpaillange and Others v Commission
   (Case F-104/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contract staff - Recruitment - Classification - Former individual experts - Diplomas - Professional experience - Plea of illegality)
   2009/C 102/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Joséphine Arpaillange and Others (Santiago, Chile) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by I. Sulce and B. Driessen, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decisions of the authority authorised to conclude contracts stipulating the applicants' conditions of employment, as set out in their contracts as contract staff, on the ground that the number of years of professional experience recognised in their cases by the authority authorised to conclude contracts is less than the number of years' professional experience actually acquired by the applicants and, second, an action for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 20.10.2006, p. 35.


title: Case C-65/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Charlotte Rosselle v Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)
   (Case C-65/14)
   2014/C 129/16
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Charlotte Rosselle

      Defendants: Institut national d’assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI), Union nationale des mutualités libres (UNM Libres)

      Intervener: Institut pour l'Egalité des Femmes et des Hommes (IEFH)

      Question referred

   Do sections 1 and 2 of title III, chapter III, of the Royal Decree of 3 July 1996 implementing the Law of 14 July 1994 coordinating compulsory medical care and sickness benefit insurance infringe Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (1) and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2) in failing to provide for an exemption from the minimum contribution period for a public servant assigned non-active status for personal reasons who is on maternity leave, whereas such an exemption is provided for a public servant who has resigned or has been dismissed?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


title: Case C-75/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Article 18 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24 — Derogation — Scope — Member State in which reduced fares on public transport are granted only to students whose parents are in receipt of family allowances in that Member State)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-75/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Article 18 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24 - Derogation - Scope - Member State in which reduced fares on public transport are granted only to students whose parents are in receipt of family allowances in that Member State)
   2012/C 366/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and D. Roussanov, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Fruhmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18, 20 and 21 TFEU and of Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC — Contracts concerning the sale of reduced-price travel tickets to students concluded between various bodies of a Member State and various public transport undertakings — Exclusion from entitlement to those reductions of students whose parents are not entitled to family benefits in that State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by granting reduced fares on public transport in principle only to students whose parents are in receipt of Austrian family allowances, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU and also Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-282/14: Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland), lodged on 10 June 2014 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe ‘Stylinart’ sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Podkarpacki, Skarb Państwa — Prezydent Miasta Przemyśla

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling made by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie (Poland), lodged on 10 June 2014 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe ‘Stylinart’ sp. z o.o. v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Podkarpacki, Skarb Państwa — Prezydent Miasta Przemyśla
   (Case C-282/14)
   (2015/C 171/10)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe ‘Stylinart’ sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Podkarpacki, Skarb Państwa — Prezydent Miasta Przemyśla
   By order of 11 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy w Rzeszowie.


title: Case C-209/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Supply of goods or services — Lease agreement — Return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement to the lessor — Concept of ‘cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment’ — Lessor’s right to a reduction of the taxable amount — Double taxation — Separate supplies — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-209/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Supply of goods or services - Lease agreement - Return of immovable property that is the subject-matter of a lease agreement to the lessor - Concept of ‘cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment’ - Lessor’s right to a reduction of the taxable amount - Double taxation - Separate supplies - Principle of fiscal neutrality))
   (2015/C 294/13)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: NLB Leasing d.o.o.

      Respondent: Republika Slovenija

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2(1), 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a lease agreement relating to immovable property provides either that ownership of that property is to be transferred to the lessee on the expiry of that agreement or that all the essential powers attaching to ownership of that property are to be enjoyed by the lessee and, in particular, substantially all the rewards and risks incidental to legal ownership of that property are transferred to the lessee and the present value of the amount of the lease payments is practically identical to the market value of the property, the transaction resulting from that agreement must be treated as an acquisition of capital goods.

               2.

               Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not permitting a taxable person to reduce the taxable amount where that person has in fact received all the payments in consideration for the service which he supplied or where, without the agreement having been refused or cancelled, the recipient of that service is no longer liable to the taxable person for the agreed price.

               3.

               The principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding, first, a leasing service relating to immovable property and, second, the sale of that property to a person who is a third party to the lease agreement, being taxed separately for value added tax purposes, where those transactions cannot be regarded as forming a single supply, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2000 in Case C-314/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State (the Netherlands)): Snellers Auto's BV v Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer (First authorisation of a vehicle for use on the public highway — Determination of the date — Technical standards and regulations — Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC))

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 355/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 5 October 2000
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
in Case C-74/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                  in Case C-314/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary                    from the Nederlandse Raad van State (the Netherlands)):
               of State for Health and Others (1)                        Snellers Auto’s BV v Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst
                                                                                Wegverkeer (1)
(Directive 98/43/EC — Advertising and sponsorship of
                  tobacco products — Validity)                           (First authorisation of a vehicle for use on the public highway
                                                                         — Determination of the date — Technical standards and
                                                                         regulations — Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                        (2000/C 355/04)                                                     amendment, Article 28 EC))
                                                                                (2000/C 355/05)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-74/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Office), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the                                    in the European Court Reports)
proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
and Secretary of State for Health and Others, ex parte: Imperial         In Case C-314/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Tobacco Ltd and Others — on the interpretation on the                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse
validity of Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and            Raad van State (Council of State, the Netherlands) for a
of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member            court between Snellers Auto’s BV and Algemeen Directeur van
States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco            de Dienst Wegverkeer — on the interpretation of Council
products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9) — the Court, composed of:                 Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida            procedure for the provision of information in the field of
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen                  technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as
(Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, A. La              amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet            (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75) and by Directive 94/10/EC of the
and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von             European Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and L. Hewlett, Administrator, for           materially amending for the second time Directive 83/189 (OJ
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, in                1994 L 100, p. 30), and of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty
which it has ruled:                                                      (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the Court
                                                                         (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
                                                                         President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken,
                                                                         Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Since Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                         12 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products has been annulled
by the judgment delivered today in Case C-376/98 Germany v               1.    For the purposes of determining whether national rules, such as
Parliament and Council, there is no need to give a ruling on the               the Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels omtrent de wijze
question submitted.                                                            waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de openbare weg op
                                                                               het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebewijs van een
                                                                               voertuig wordt bepaald, adopted on 9 December 1994,
                                                                               constitute a technical regulation covered by the obligation
                                                                               to notify the Commission laid down in Council Directive
                                                                               83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                               the provision of information in the field of technical standards
                                                                               and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC
                                                                               of 22 March 1988, the subsequent amendments introduced by
                                                                               Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the
                                                                               Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second
                                                                               time Directive 83/189 should not be taken into consideration.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
2.   National rules concerning the determination of the date on            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
     which a vehicle was first authorised for use on the public            Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
     highway, such as the Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels        proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
     omtrent de wijze waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de          and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
     openbare weg op het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebe-        J.H. Cooke & Sons — on the interpretation of the first
     wijs van een voertuig wordt bepaald, do not fall within the           paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC)
     scope of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/182.            No 762/94 of 6 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                           application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 with
3.   National rules which provide that the date on which an                regard to the set-side scheme (OJ 1994 L 90, p. 8) — the Court
     imported vehicle was first authorised for use on the public           (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
     highway is to be fixed at the date on which its registration          Chamber, V. Skouris and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges;
     certificate was issued only where the vehicle has not been            P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
     registered for more than two days in another Member State             has given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which it has
     constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative    ruled:
     restriction on imports for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC
     Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).                         The first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 762/94 of 6 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the
4.   Such national rules may, in spite of their restrictive effects on     application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 with regard
     the free movement of goods, be justified by imperative require-       to the set-aside scheme must be interpreted as meaning that the
     ments such as road safety and/or protection of the environment        expression ‘an area which has been cultivated in the previous year
     if it can be shown that the resulting restriction is necessary to     with a view to a harvest’ covers land previously under grass that has
     ensure road safety and/or protection of the environment and           subsequently been cut and used for silage.
     that the restriction is not disproportionate to those objectives,
     particularly in the sense that no other, less restrictive, measures
                                                                           (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
     are available.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           in Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                     European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Aid granted to undertakings in the Magefesa
                       of 12 October 2000
                                                                                group)
in Case C-372/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                            (2000/C 355/07)
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom): The
  Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1)                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EEC)                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
No 1765/92 — Regulation (EC) No 762/94 — Aids linked                                          in the European Court Reports)
to the area down to arable crops and set-side — Meaning of
an ‘area which has been cultivated in the previous year with
                         a view to harvest’)                               In Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
                                                                           Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: G. Rozet and R. Vidal Puig) — application for
                          (2000/C 355/06)                                  annulment of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 Octo-
                                                                           ber 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the
                                                                           Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                           President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
In Case C-72/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of                  on 12 October 2000, in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-29/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/83/EC)

text:
C 44/10                   EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of the Council of 29 June 1970 on                   2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp, as amended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000
on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on               (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
the internal market and Regulation (EEC) No 619/71 of the Council
of 22 March 1971 laying down general rules for granting aid for
flax and hemp, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/
98 of 26 June 1998, must be interpreted so precluding national
legislation which has the effect of prohibiting the cultivation and
possession of industrial hemp covered by those regulations.
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)                                   in Case C-63/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland ( 1)
                          of 16 January 2003
in Case C-29/02: Commission of the European Communi-                            Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                     ties v Kingdom of Spain ( 1)                                               to implement Directive 98/83/EC)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure                                            (2003/C 44/19)
                 to transpose Directive 98/83/EC)
                              (2003/C 44/18)                                                        (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          In Case C-63/02, Commission of the European Communities
                     in the European Court Reports)                             (Agent: M. Shotter) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond, assisted by M. Demetri-
                                                                                ou, barrister): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                                adopt for Northern Ireland and Wales all the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
In Case C-29/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
                                                                                quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998
L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
to adopt or, in any event, to communicate to the Commission                     L 330, p. 32) or, in any event, by failing to notify such
                                                                                provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                                Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
to comply with Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November
1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption                     under Article 17(1) and (2) of that directive, the Court
                                                                                (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
(OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (First                   Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
                                                                                on 16 January 2003, in which it:
er, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 16 January 2003, in which it:
                                                                                1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt for Northern Ireland and
                                                                                Wales all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                   necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/83/EC of
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                     3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human
       Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of                        consumption, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
       water intended for human consumption, the Kingdom of Spain                     Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                     Article 17(1) of that directive;


title: Case T-293/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — Theophilou v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/31

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Theophilou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-293/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 026/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Christos Theophilou (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Eleni Theophilou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Christos Theophilou and Ms Eleni Theophilou shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-22/07: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/24

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-22/07) (1)

   (2008/C 92/48)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Action brought on 14 March 1996 by Giuliana Gaspari against the European Parliament (Case T-36/96)

text:
No C 145/ 10          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18 . 5 . 96
— to pay compensation for the non-material damage                        reserving a post allocated to a Directorate-General to
    suffered, in the sum of Lfrs 300 000 or such other sum as            which a national of one of the new Member States could
    the Court may consider fair and reasonable,                          have been assigned.
— to pay the costs .                                                     Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers in the
                                                                         present case .
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a grade A 5 official in the Commission's
Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations
and Social Affairs, contests the withdrawal by the
appointing authority of that institution of the measures             Action brought on 14 March 1996 by Giuliana Gaspari
taken to organize the procedure in respect of vacancy notice                         against the European Parliament
COM/116/94 with a view to filling the post of Head of the                                     ( Case T-36/96 )
Health Promotion and Disease Surveillance Unit, and the                                         ( 96/C 145/20 )
decision to fill that post by means of an open competition
and to reserve it for a national of one of the new Member
States .                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
In support of his case, the applicant pleads ;                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 14 March 1 996
— breach of general legal principles, in particular the              by Giuliana Gaspari, residing at Sandweiler ( Luxembourg ),
    principles of equality of treatment and the protection of        represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
    legitimate expectations . He considers in that regard that       Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    the appointing authority did not include in the text of the      service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
    vacancy notice any qualification to the effect that, if the      SARL, 1 , rue Glesener.
    Commission were to decide, after publication of the
    notice, to reserve the post for a national of one of the
    new Member States, in accordance with a procedure yet            The applicant claims that the Court should :
    to be adopted by the Chamber, the notice could be
    regarded as wholly ineffective in law,                           — annul the decision treating the applicant's absence on
                                                                         5 May 1995 as irregular and deducting it from her
— infringement of Articles 4, 5 , 27 and 29 of the Staff                 annual leave,
    Regulations . He points out in that regard that, while the
    appointing authority is not bound to act on a                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
    recruitment procedure undertaken pursuant to
    Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, it is nevertheless          Pleas in law and main arguments
    supposed to observe the general principles of law and,
    consequently, that it should have pursued the procedure          The applicant states that on 3 May 1995 her attending
    before initiating a different procedure which, moreover,         medical practitioner issued a certificate of incapacity for
    excluded the participation of the applicant.                     work in respect of the period from 3 to 5 May 1995
                                                                     inclusive. On 4 May the defendant required her to undergo a
    In addition, the Regulation introducing special measures         medical examination arranged by it pursuant to Article
    applicable to the recruitment of officials as a result of the    59 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations of officials . At the end of that
    accession of new Member States entered into force on a           examination, the institution's doctor informed her that he
    date subsequent to the publication of vacancy notice             considered her fit to take up her duties again the following
    COM/116/94 and, since it was not given retroactive               day, Friday 5 May . The applicant went back to work on
    effect, it cannot affect the situation as governed by the        8 May. By note of 22 May 1995 the head of the Parliament's
    said vacancy notice .                                            Personnel Division informed the applicant of the decision to
                                                                     treat her absence on 5 May as irregular and to deduct that
    Furthermore, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations refers          absence, in accordance with Article 60 of the Staff
    not to functions but to posts . In consequence, the              Regulations, from her annual leave .
    Commission is supposed to secure a balanced
    geographical representation not among persons within             In opposition to that decision, the applicant pleads, first,
    the organization plan of a Directorate-General but               breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons,
    among all posts provided for in the list of posts . It           arguing that the defendant did not state the medical reasons
    follows that the defendant institution could have                why the examining doctor decided to regard the absence on
    observed the principle of recruitment on the broadest            5 May as irregular, thereby precluding any examination of
    possible geographical basis, in particular as regards the        the merits of the contested decision .
    new Member States, while at the same time having
    regard to the general principles of equality of treatment        In addition, the applicant considers that the decision
    and the protection of legitimate expectations, by                disregarded Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations . She
 ---pagebreak---  18 . 5 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 145/ 11
points out in that regard that, on the day in question, she            the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
was automatically entitled to sickness leave, since she had            ( IV/35.545 — LH/SAS )( 1 ).
sent to her institution in good time a certificate from her
attending medical practitioner prescribing an absence from            The applicant submitted its observations on the
work from 3 to 5 May.                                                  announcements which the Commission, pursuant to
                                                                      Articles 5 ( 2 ) and 16 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
The institution was entitled to require her to undergo a              No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987 laying down the
medical examination, but was not authorized to leave the              procedure for the application of the rules on competition to
medical certificate out of account and to order the applicant          undertakings in the air transport sector ( 2), published in the
to return to work, even in the event that its medical officer          OfficialJournal ofthe European Communities, and claimed
disputed the validity of the medical certificate which had            in that regard that the Commission ought to make an
been produced . Article 59 ( 3 ) states that cases in dispute are     exemption under Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty subject to
to be referred to the Invalidity Committee for an opinion. It         the condition that staff levels in the two undertakings would
follows that the contested decision is unlawful , inasmuch as         not be reduced by more than 1 % over a two-year period .
it was adopted without the Invalidity Committee having                The applicant subsequently learned from the daily press that
delivered an opinion confirming the conclusions of the                the Commission had decided to exempt the Agreement from
medical officer designated by the institution.                        the prohibition set out in Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty ( see
                                                                      Article 85 ( 3 ) thereof) but that no conditions had, as
Lastly, the applicant observes that the medical officer did           requested by the applicant, been imposed in that regard
not undertake any clinical examination invalidating the               concerning employment in the two companies .
decision of her attending medical practitioner that she was
unfit for work from 3 to 5 May 1995 . She concludes from              The applicant contends that, even though the decision is
this that such an opinion, which is not based on any medical          addressed to SAS and Lufthansa, its members are directly
finding, has no scientific value and must be vitiated by a            and individually concerned by that decision and that it, as
manifest error of assessment .                                        the body responsible for safeguarding its members '
                                                                      interests, is consequently entitled to bring an action under
                                                                      Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                      The applicant also argues that the decision constitutes a
                                                                      breach of Article 1 90 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as it fails to
           Action brought on 15 March 1996 by the                     make clear to what extent the safeguarding of jobs was
     Luftfartsfunktionaererne against Commission of the               taken into account as a ground for the decision.
                    European Communities
                        ( Case T-37/96 )                              With regard to the substance of the case, the applicant
                                                                      submits that the decision amounts to a breach of the EC
                          ( 96/C 145/21 )
                                                                      Treaty and of the fundamental rights that form part of the
                                                                      Community's legal order in so far as the Commission failed
                (Language of tbe case: Danish)                        in its decision to impose any requirement regarding the
                                                                      preservation of jobs in SAS and Lufthansa . It argues in this
An action against the Commission of the European                      connection that the Commission, which is required under
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Article 155 of the EC Treaty to ensure application of the
Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996                 provisions thereof, must, when applying Article 85 ( 3 ), take
by the Luftfartsfunktionaererne ( Air Transport Staff                 account of the objectives of the European Community as set
Association ), Kastrup ( Denmark ), represented by Christian          out in the Treaty. Under Article 2 thereof, one of the tasks of
Harlang, of the Copenhagen Bar.                                       the European Community is to promote a high level of
                                                                      employment, and it follows from Article 3 ( i ) that one of the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         powers of the European Community is to introduce a policy
                                                                      in the social sphere . It follows from the case-law of the Court
— annul the Commission Decision of 16 January 1996                    of Justice and Court of First Instance, and is now laid down
     exempting, under Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, a            in Article F ( 2 ) of the Treaty on European Union, that
     Cooperation Agreement of 11 May 1995 between                     fundamental personal rights are included among the general
     Scandinavian Airlines System and Deutsche Lufthansa             principles of Community law. It is recognized in the
                                                                     constitutions of the Member States and follows from
     AG,
                                                                     numerous international treaties and conventions that the
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                       right to work constitutes a general fundamental right. In
     proceedings .                                                   adopting the contested decision, the Commission, contrary
                                                                     to fundamental rights under Community law, failed to take
                                                                     account of employment and thereby infringed the right to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      work of the applicant's members .
The applicant, which is a professional organization
representing staff at Copenhagen Airport, and almost all of           C ) OJ 1996 L 54 , p. 28 .
whose members are employed by Scandinavian Airlines                   ( 2 ) OJ 1987 L 374, p. 1 .
System ( SAS ), contests Commission Decision 96/180/EC of
16 January 1996 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-220/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-248/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/76)                                                       (2001/C 118/79)
By order of 14 December 2000 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 January 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-220/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-248/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v France.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-275/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-411/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/77)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/80)
By order of 19 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-275/99: (reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg): Société            from the register of Case C-411/99: Commission of the
Adidas Sarragan France v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du            European Communities v Austria.
Bas-Rhin.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-54/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-236/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/81)
                       (2001/C 118/78)
                                                                      By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
By order of 9 January 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-54/00: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-236/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v Italy.
European Communities v Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case C-562/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Article 56 TFEU — German legislation regarding care insurance — Benefits in kind for assistance at home are unavailable where the person reliant on care is temporarily staying in another Member State — Lower level of exportable cash benefits — Failure to reimburse hire costs of care equipment in other Member States)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-562/10) (1)

   (Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Article 56 TFEU - German legislation regarding care insurance - Benefits in kind for assistance at home are unavailable where the person reliant on care is temporarily staying in another Member State - Lower level of exportable cash benefits - Failure to reimburse hire costs of care equipment in other Member States)
   2012/C 287/08
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F.W. Bulst and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 56 TFEU — National legislation regarding care insurance limiting entitlement to a care allowance to six weeks where an insured person stays temporarily in another Member State, excluding reimbursement of hire costs of care equipment and providing that care-related benefits in kind supplied in the Member State of stay are not reimbursed at the same rate as those supplied in Germany

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.