title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Case C-215/94 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Jürgen Mohr v. Finanzamt Bad Segeberg (VAT - Definition of suppply of services - Definitive discontinuation of milk production - Compensation received under Regulation (EEC) No 1336/86)

text:
No C 133/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4 . 5 . 96
certain wines in Italy and France, the Court, composed of                 Treaty precludes the driving of a motor vehicle by a
President, E. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, C. N. Kakouris and                   person who could have obtained a licence from the host
D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ) G. F. Mancini ,                State in exchange for the licence issued by another
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),                      Member State but who did not make that exchange
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                       within the prescribed period from being treated as
L. Sévon, Judges; Advocate-General : G. Cosmas, Registrar:                driving without a licence and thus rendered punishable
L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on                        by imprisonment or a fine.
29 February 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
 1 , dismisses the application;
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
C ) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 February 1996
                                                                      in Case C-215/94 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling from
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the Bundesfinanzhof): Jürgen Mohr v. Finanzamt Bad
                      of 29 February 1996                                                         Segeberg ( 1 )
in Case C-193/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made            (VAT — Definition of suppply of services — Definitive
by the Amtsgericht Tiergarten ): Criminal proceedings                 discontinuation of milk production — Compensation
             against Sofia Skanavi and Konstantin                            received under Regulation (EEC) No 1336/86)
                    Chryssanthakopoulos ( 1 )                                                   (9 6/C 133/16 )
(Freedom of movement for persons — Driving licences —
          Obligation to exchange them — Penalties)                                   (Language of the case: German)
                          ( 96/C 133/15 )
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: German)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         In Case C-215/94 : Reference to the Court under Article 177
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
In Case C-193/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Jürgen Mohr and Finanzamt Bad Segeberg — on the
of the EC Treaty by the Amtsgericht ( Local Court)                   interpretation of Articles 6(1 ) and 1 1 (A) ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth
Tiergarten, Berlin, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal          Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
proceedings before that court against Sofia Skanavi and              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
Konstantin Chryssanthakopoulos — on the interpretation               turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
of Articles 6 , 8a and 52 of the EC Treaty — the Court,              uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) the
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.               Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A . O. Edward,
Kakouris and G. Hirsch, ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.            President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho
Mancini ( Rapporteur), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho            de Almeida, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón,
de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,                       Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,                         Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 February
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                      1 996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
29 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 Articles 6 (1 ) and 11 (A) (1 ) (a) of the Sixth Council
follows :                                                            Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977, on the
                                                                     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
I . As Community law stands at present and priòr to the              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
     implementation of Council Directive 91 /439/EEC of29            uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning
     July 1991 on driving licences, Article 52 of the EC             that an undertaking to discontinue milk production given by
     Treaty does not preclude a Member State from requiring          a farmer under Regulation (EEC) No 1336/86 of 6 May
     the holder ofa driving licence issued by another Member          1986 fixing compensation for the definitive discontinuation
     State to exchange that licence for a licence of the host        of milk production does not constitute a supply of services.
     Member State within one year of taking up normal                Consequently, any compensation received for that purpose
     residence in that State in order to remain entitled to drive    is not subject to turnover tax.
     a motor vehicle there.
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
2 . In view of the resultant consequences, such as may arise
     in the national legal system in question, Article 52 of the


title: Case T-517/14: Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Pelikan v OHIM — RMP (be.bag)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/77

         Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Pelikan v OHIM — RMP (be.bag)
   (Case T-517/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/90)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-292/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/21

         Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI)
   (Case T-292/14)
   2014/C 245/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 given in Case R 1849/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XAΛΛOYMI’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 11 578 473

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) CTMR.


title: Case C-133/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Common policy on asylum — Directive 2005/85/EC — Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Safe countries of origin — European safe third countries — Minimum common lists — Procedure for adopting or amending the minimum common lists — Article 67(1) and first indent of Article 67(5) EC — No power)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-133/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common policy on asylum - Directive 2005/85/EC - Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Safe countries of origin - European safe third countries - Minimum common lists - Procedure for adopting or amending the minimum common lists - Article 67(1) and first indent of Article 67(5) EC - No power)
   (2008/C 158/04)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens, A. Caiola, A. Auersperger Matić and K. Bradley, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, P. Van Nuffel and J.-F. Pasquier, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm, M. Balta and G. Maganza, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Niollet, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-15/03: Action brought on 15 January 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 70/28               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           22.3.2003
such as the rights of defence, the principle of impartiality and        Action brought on 15 January 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga
fairness, the obligation to state the reasons for a decision and        Meabe against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
the obligation to make decisions within a reasonable period.                      Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
The applicants furthermore invoke violations of general prin-
ciples of law such as the principle of proportionality, equal
treatment, non bis in idem, legitimate expectations and                                           (Case T-15/03)
transparency, coherence and non-discrimination.
                                                                                (2003/C 70/45)
According to the applicants, the fine imposed on them was                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
unlawful in that its amount was manifestly exorbitant and that
several steps by which this amount was calculated were
individually unlawful. The applicants submit that the setting
of the amount of the fine for gravity was made on the                   An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
manifestly inappropriate basis of the applicants’ share of sales        Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
of Nintendo’s products. If there were other considerations,             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
these were, according to the applicants, insufficiently stated.         15 January 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, residing in
                                                                        Bilbao (Spain), represented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero.
The decision then applied an increase for deterrence where,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
according to the applicants, none was appropriate and in a
manner that conflicted with previous policy, was based on an            —     set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
error of law, involved double counting and infringed the rights               the OHIM of 24 October 2002 in Case R-918/2001;
of defence. The applicants also state that a multiplier of 3 for
deterrence was contrary to the principle of equal treatment,            —     uphold in its entirety the opposition submitted in pro-
without giving sufficient reasons and on the basis of an
                                                                              ceeding B 290157;
inappropriate methodology.
                                                                        —     uphold the arguments submitted by the applicant and
                                                                              allow the appropriate Opposition Division of the OHIM
The applicants furthermore submit that the decision imposed                   to refuse to register the trade mark in question; and
an increase on the fine of 10 % for each full year of
the infringement although the infringement was not of a                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
continuous intensity. According to the applicants, the increase
to the fine for the first full year of the infringement is also
contrary to the Commission’s guidelines.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
With regard to an increase of 75 % to the fine for aggravating          Applicant for the Com-         BANCO BILBAO              VIZCAYA
circumstances, the applicants submit that this is based on              munity trade mark:             ARGENTARIA S.A.
manifest errors of assessment of the applicants’ situation and
behaviour and is contrary to the Commission’s previous policy           The Community trade            ‘BLUE’        —          Application
and practice.                                                           mark concerned:                No 1345974, for goods and ser-
                                                                                vices in Classes 9, 36 and 38
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to     The applicant
The applicants finally submit that the granting of a reduction          the trade mark or sign
of 25 % for attenuating circumstances did not give proper               asserted by way of oppo-
regard to the criteria specified in the Leniency Notice and the         sition in the opposition
Commission’s previous policy and practice thereunder. It                proceedings:
was also not consistent with the treatment given to other
undertakings in this case and did not take proper account of            Trade mark or sign             Spanish word mark BILBAO
the behaviour of the applicants who had voluntarily                     asserted by way of oppo-       BLUE for services in Class 36
approached the Commission to inform it of the infringing                sition in the opposition
conduct. The altered assessment of the applicants’ cooperation          proceedings:
during the administrative procedure, also infringed, according
to the applicants, on its rights of defence.                            Decision of the Oppo-          Partial refusal of the application
                                                                        sition Division:               in respect of certain services in
                                                                                Class 36 (Insurance services;
                                                                                financial affairs; monetary affairs
                                                                                and real estate affairs)
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/29
Decision of the Board of       Appeal upheld and opposition                In support of its application, the applicant submits a violation
Appeal:                        dismissed in its entirety                   of Article 81 EC Treaty and a serious error of assessment in
                                                                           fact and in law, as well as an infringement of essential
Grounds of claim:              Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)           procedural requirements, such as the duty to state reasons.
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-          According to the applicant, the Commission has not proven
                               lihood of confusion and associ-             to the requisite legal standard that the applicant agreed with
                               ation between the trade marks at            Nintendo to hinder parallel trade.
                               issue)
                                                                           The applicant furthermore submits a breach of the principles
                                                                           of proper administration, such as the principle of equality and
                                                                           the principle of proportionality. In this respect, the applicant
                                                                           also invokes a violation of the duty to state reasons. The
                                                                           applicant states that the Commission needs to have regard to
                                                                           the gravity and the duration of the infringement when
                                                                           establishing the fine. According to the applicant, the Com-
                                                                           mission has not acted in accordance with these principles
                                                                           because there is no convincing evidence that the applicant
Action brought on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact Data                       entered into an agreement with Nintendo and, in any event,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       the alleged infringements by the applicant had a much more
                                                                           limited impact and shorter duration than the infringements of
                                                                           Nintendo and its other distributors.
                          (Case T-18/03)
                          (2003/C 70/46)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Action brought on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/Thüringen
                                                                           Porzellan GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-20/03)
European Communities on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact
Data, Burglengenfeld, Germany, represented by Mr J. K. de                                           (2003/C 70/47)
Pree and Mr R. Wesseling, Lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2002 in                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      Cases COMP/35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega-                      European Communities on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/
      Nintendo in as far as addressed to the applicant (in                 Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, having its registered office in
      particular articles 1 and 3) in whole or in part;                    Kahla (Germany), represented by M. Schütte and S. Zühlke,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) Set aside Article 1(2) of Commission Decision
                                                                                C(2002)4040 final of 30 October 2002 concerning State
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  aid provided by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and
                                                                                KAHLA/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Proceeding C 62/
                                                                                2000) in so far as that provision adversely affects the
The applicant is active in the fields of distributing and                        applicant;
republishing entertainment software. Between April and
December 1997, the applicant acted as exclusive distributor                (2) Set aside Article 2 in so far as it relates to the measures
for Nintendo products in Belgium and Luxemburg. The                              referred to in point (1);
Commission alleges that the applicant entered into an agree-
ment and/or restricted practice with Nintendo to restrict                  (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
parallel export.                                                                 ings.


title: Case C-266/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2013 — L. Kik, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2013 — L. Kik, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-266/13)
   2013/C 207/48
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: L. Kik

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Must the rules regarding the personal scope of application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and the rules which determine the territorial scope of the designation rules in Title II of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that those designation rules apply in a case such as the present, which concerns (a) a worker residing in the Netherlands who (b) is a national of the Netherlands, (c) in any event, was previously compulsorily insured in the Netherlands, (d) is employed as a seafarer by an employer established in Switzerland, (e) carries out his work on board a pipelayer which flies the Panamanian flag, and (f) carries out those activities first outside the territory of the Union (approximately 3 weeks above the continental shelf of the United States and approximately 2 weeks in international waters) and then above the continental shelf of the Netherlands (periods of one month and approximately one week) and of the United Kingdom (a period of slightly more than one week), while (g) the income earned thereby is subject to income tax levied by the Netherlands?

                           (b)

                           If so, is Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 then only applicable on the days when the person concerned works above the continental shelf of a Member State of the Union, or also during the preceding period in which he worked elsewhere outside the territory of the Union?

               2.

               If Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 applies to a worker as referred to in question 1(a), what legislation or sets of legislation does the Regulation then designate as applicable?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).


title: Case T-347/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — FLA Europe v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/39

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — FLA Europe v Commission
   (Case T-347/17)
   (2017/C 249/53)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: FLA Europe NV (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and B. Natens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare its application initiating proceedings admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co., implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

                           —

                           The contested regulation lacks any legal basis.

                           —

                           The Commission did not have the power to adopt the contested regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 266 TFEU by reason of a failure to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, C&J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty (prohibition of retroactivity) in so far as anti-dumping duties were imposed on goods that are in free circulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in so far as anti-dumping duties were imposed without a fresh assessment of the EU interest.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5(1) and (4) TEU in so far as an act was adopted which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


title: Case F-51/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Bui Van v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Classification in grade and step — Improper classification — Withdrawal of a measure vitiated by illegality — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable time-limit — Rights of the defence — Right to sound administration)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/57

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Bui Van v Commission
   (Case F-51/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Classification in grade and step - Improper classification - Withdrawal of a measure vitiated by illegality - Legitimate expectations - Reasonable time-limit - Rights of the defence - Right to sound administration)
   (2008/C 313/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and R. Albelice, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Director General of the Commission's Joint Research Centre of 4 October 2006 in so far as it reclassifies the applicant in Grade AST 3, whereas he was initially classified in Grade AST 4 and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Bui Van the sum of EUR 1 500 by way of damages;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Mr Bui Van to pay two thirds of his costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Mr Bui Van.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007, p. 43.


title: Case C-426/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III — by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case of GE.M.E.G. S.r.l. against 1) Comune di Carrara and 2) Cerit S.p.A.

text:
24.1.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 21/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                 6.    Should ceasing to live as a family with a person generally
richt Freiburg by order of that Court of 12 March 2003 in                      be deemed to occur for this purpose where the Turkish
the administrative law case of Ceyhun Aydinli versus                           worker’s adult child moves out of the Turkish worker’s
Land Baden-Württemberg, represented by the Regie-                              home on a permanent basis and neither the child nor the
                   rungspräsidium Freiburg                                     Turkish worker continues to require particular closeness
                                                                               or care?
                        (Case C-373/03)                                  7.    Should ceasing to belong to the labour force, in the
                                                                               context of the legal status of a member of the family of a
                                                                               Turkish worker under the second indent of the first
                         (2004/C 21/15)                                        sentence of Article 7, be determined by reference to
                                                                               criteria the same as those applicable to the forfeiture of
                                                                               rights under the third indent of Article 6(1)?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   8.    Does the child of a Turkish worker who has completed a
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                        course of vocational training in the host country forfeit
Freiburg (Administrative Court, Freiburg) of 12 March 2003,                    his right under the second sentence of Article 7 of
received at the Court Registry on 5 September 2003, for a                      Decision No 1/80 to respond to any offer of employment
preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of Ceyhun                    in that Member State if he has already entered the labour
Aydinli versus Land Baden-Württemberg, represented by the                      force there by taking up permanent employment?
Regierungspräsidium Freiburg on the following questions:
                                                                         9.    Is that right under the second sentence of Article 7 of
1.   Can the fact that a Turkish worker is not duly registered                 Decision No 1/80 forfeited if a person with that right has
     as belonging to the labour force due to enforcement of a                  ceased to be duly registered as belonging to the labour
     fixed-term prison sentence cause him to have ceased to                    force of that Member State in a way that would lead to
     belong to that labour force, thereby leading to the                       the loss of a Turkish worker’s legal status under the third
     forfeiture of rights that he has acquired under the third                 indent of Article 6(1)?
     indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
     Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
     development of the Association (hereinafter ‘Decision
     No 1/80’) as a result of his many years of employment in
     the Member State?
2.   Where applicable, how is the duration of an absence from
     the labour force due to enforcement of a prison sentence,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
     which leads to forfeiture of rights, to be determined?              Tributaria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III —
                                                                         by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case of
                                                                         GE.M.E.G. S.r.l. against 1) Comune di Carrara and 2) Cerit
3.   When determining that duration can account also be                                                S.p.A.
     taken of the period during which the Turkish worker was
     absent as a result of detention pending trial under a court
     order immediately preceding enforcement of the prison                                       (Case C-426/03)
     sentence?
                                                                                (2004/C 21/16)
4.   When determining that duration can account also be
     taken of the fact that, at the time that the expulsion order
     is made, the claimant is expected to remain absent from
     the labour force for some time because, if expulsion is             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     not ordered, he can in all probability — in deferring               European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-
     enforcement of the prison sentence — commence long-                 taria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III — (Provincial
     term drug therapy aimed at his social and occupational              Tax Court of Massa Carrara, Third Chamber) of 21 July 2003,
     rehabilitation for which there are sufficient prospects of          received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2003, for a
     success?                                                            preliminary ruling in the case of GE.M.E.G. S.r.l. against
                                                                         1) Comune di Carrara and 2) Cerit S.p.A. on the following
5.   In order for a member of the family of a Turkish worker             questions:
     to forfeit his legal status under the second indent of the
     first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is it               (A) Does a tax, levied by a municipal authority in one
     necessary for that member of the family to have ceased                    Member State on goods exported to another Member
     living as a family with the Turkish worker from whom                      State on account of their leaving a municipality in the
     he originally derived his right of residence and also for                 first Member State, constitute a charge having equivalent
     that member of the family to have definitively ceased to                  effect to customs duties on exports, even though that
     be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the                fiscal charge also applies to goods leaving that munici-
     Member State in which they are both living?                               pality for another part of that Member State?
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.1.2004
(B) Are the legislative provisions by virtue of which that tax          taria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III — (Provincial
     is levied compatible with Community law? In particular,            Tax Court of Massa Carrara, Third Chamber) of 21 July 2003,
     is the provision laid down in the Law of the Italian State         received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2003, for a
     No 749 of 15 July 1911 (as subsequently amended and                preliminary ruling in the case of OMYA S.p.a. against Comune
     supplemented) by virtue of which the Comune di Carrara             di Carrara on the following questions:
     imposes and levies a tax on marble (and derivatives)
     excavated in its territory and transported out of it (the ‘tax
     on marble’) compatible with, or contrary to, Article 23            (A) Does a tax, levied by a municipal authority in one
     (ex Article 9) of the Treaty establishing the European                   Member State on goods exported to another Member
     Communities, which provides that ‘[t]he Community                        State on account of their leaving a municipality in the
     shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover                    first Member State, constitute a charge having equivalent
     all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition               effect to customs duties on exports, even though that
     between Member States of customs duties on imports                       fiscal charge also applies to goods leaving that munici-
     and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect’,                pality for another part of that Member State?
     and Article 25 (ex Article 12), which provides that
     ‘[c]ustoms duties on imports and exports and charges
     having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between               (B) Are the legislative provisions by virtue of which that tax
     Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to                      is levied compatible with Community law? In particular,
     customs duties of a fiscal nature’?                                      is the provision laid down in the Law of the Italian State
                                                                              No 749 of 15 July 1911 (as subsequently amended and
(C) Is this tax on marble compatible with Articles 81 EC to                   supplemented) by virtue of which the Comune di Carrara
     89 EC (ex Articles 85 to 90 and 92 to 94 of the EC                       imposes and levies a tax on marble (and derivatives)
     Treaty), which lay down a series of rules intended to                    excavated in its territory and transported out of it (the ‘tax
     create a system which will ensure that competition on                    on marble’) compatible with, or contrary to, Article 23
     the common market is not distorted and which will                        (ex Article 9) of the Treaty establishing the European
     remove subsisting impediments in order to attain that                    Communities, which provides that ‘[t]he Community
     objective?                                                               shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover
                                                                              all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition
(D) If the answer to the previous question is ‘No’ — having                   between Member States of customs duties on imports
     regard to the fact that, in respect of the municipality in               and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect’,
     which the tax on marble (and derivatives) is levied the                  and Article 25 (ex Article 12), which provides that
     Treaty provides no special measures in favour of the                     ‘[c]ustoms duties on imports and exports and charges
     Italian Republic — is it compatible with Community law                   having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between
     for a legislative provision to impose a pecuniary charge                 Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to
     (the ‘tax on marble’) on goods transported out of one                    customs duties of a fiscal nature’?
     municipality and intended for other regions of the same
     State, or does not that particular charge instead involve
     less favourable treatment of goods intended for those              (C) Is this tax on marble compatible with Articles 81 EC to
     regions in comparison with goods exported in other                       89 EC (ex Articles 85 to 90 and 92 to 94 of the EC
     Member States, and does not this pecuniary charge                        Treaty), which lay down a series of rules intended to
     constitute an impediment to free movement of goods                       create a system which will ensure that competition on
     throughout the European market?                                          the common market is not distorted and which will
                                                                              remove subsisting impediments in order to attain that
                                                                              objective?
                                                                        (D) If the answer to the previous question is ‘No’ — having
                                                                              regard to the fact that, in respect of the municipality in
                                                                              which the tax on marble (and derivatives) is levied the
                                                                              Treaty provides no special measures in favour of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                         Italian Republic — is it compatible with Community law
Tributaria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III —                     for a legislative provision to impose a pecuniary charge
by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case of                         (the ‘tax on marble’) on goods transported out of one
           OMYA S.p.a. against Comune di Carrara                              municipality and intended for other regions of the same
                                                                              State, or does not that particular charge instead involve
                        (Case C-427/03)                                       less favourable treatment of goods intended for those
                                                                              regions in comparison with goods exported in other
                                                                              Member States, and does not this pecuniary charge
                         (2004/C 21/17)                                       constitute an impediment to free movement of goods
                                                                              throughout the European market?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-


title: Case C-288/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 June 2007 — The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 June 2007 — The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council
   (Case C-288/07)
   (2007/C 199/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Defendants: Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘distortions of competition’ to be ascertained on a public body by public body basis such that, in the context of the present case, it should be determined by reference to the area or areas where the particular body in question provides off-street parking or by reference to the totality of the national territory of the Member States?

               2.

               What is meant by the expression ‘would lead to’? In particular, what degree of probability or level of certainty is required for that condition to be satisfied?

               3.

               What is meant by the word ‘significant’? In particular, does ‘significant’ mean an effect on competition that is more than trivial or de minimis, a ‘material’ effect or an ‘exceptional’ effect?


title: Case T-141/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Protection of vineyards — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case T-141/15) (1)

      ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Protection of vineyards - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations))
      (2016/C 454/42)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková, J. Vláčil and L. Březinová, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015, L 16, p. 33), in so far as it excludes the expenditure envisaged by the Czech Republic under EAGF for a degree of protection of vineyards for the years 2010 to 2012, coming to a total of EUR 2 123 199,04.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Action brought on 27 February 1995 by Hornos Ibéricos Alba, SA ('Hisalba') against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-69/95)

text:
No C 119/26            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
         ( b ) The defendant is wrong to regard the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
               establishment of Interciment SA as constituting
               a   permanent restriction      on competition.         — annul         Commission         Decision  94/815/EC        of
               Interciment SA was established as a subsidiary             30 November 1994 (*) in so far as it affects the
               of the applicant and was subsequently                      applicant,
               continued as no more than a shell company
               until its dissolution in March 1993 . As a             — in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on the
               'sleeping company', it was never active and                applicant,
               could never have generated any 'threat
               potential'. The participation of the single            — in the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine
               temporary partner was discontinued in                      imposed on the applicant at the discretion of the Court
               November 1988 , with the result that any                   of First Instance, and
               infringements must be regarded as having been
               terminated by this date at the latest.                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
         (c ) The applicant denies having ever concluded
               agreements in restraint of competition with the        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               Greek producers Titan and Heracles. The
               relevant contracts with the Greek producers            The applicant relies upon the following grounds in support
               were concluded 'at arm's length', not by the           of its claims :
               applicant, but by its Spanish subsidiary
               'UMAR', which is not involved in the
               proceedings . The applicant also denies having           I. Breach of procedural guarantees . The applicant argues
                                                                            that its procedural rights have been seriously breached
               participated in concerted practices designed to
                                                                            for the following reasons:
               attract customers away from the Calcestruzzi
               undertaking.
                                                                            1 . Lack of clarity in the file;
         ( d ) The applicant denies having participated in a
               comprehensive cartel, the alleged Cembureau                  2. Defects in the Statement of Objections;
               agreement. The conduct of which it stands
               accused by the defendant ( even assuming it to               3 . Limited access to the file;
               be established ) is not of such kind as to prove
               participation in the alleged Cembureau                       4. Submission of illegible and erroneously cited
               agreement. The stratagem of a 'single and                        evidence and failure to translate certain documents
               continuous course of conduct' adopted to cover                   thereby impairing the applicant's right to a fair
               over the lack of evidence cannot obscure that
               fact.
                                                                                hearing.
    2 . In calculating the fine the defendant failed to take           II. Manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant's
        into account the fact that the infringements of which               conduct and failure to prove that its conduct infringed
        the applicant is accused are not serious                            Article 85 of the EC Treaty. The applicant contends
        infringements and that Interciment SA was no more                   that :
        than a sleeping company quite incapable of
        influencing market conditions. In any event, the                    1 . It was never involved in any agreement or
        defendant erred with regard to the assumed                              concerted practice concerning the so-called
        duration of the applicant's alleged infringements .                     ' Cembureau Principle';
                                                                            2 . The 'Export Policy Committee ' ( EPC) was not a
                                                                                vehicle for applying the so-called 'Cembureau
Action brought on 27 February 1995 by Hornos Ibéricos                           Agreement';
   Alba, SA ('Hisalba') against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                                   3 . The EPC was a legitimate forum for coordinating
                         (Case T-69/95 )                                        export activities and did not therefore constitute
                                                                                concerted action within the meaning of
                          ( 95/C 119/50 )                                       Article 85 ( 1 ).
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      III. As a subsidiary plea, as regards the fine imposed, the
An action against the Commission of the European                            applicant contends that the Commission has made
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           manifest errors in assessing the seriousness and the
Instance on 27 February 1995 by Hornos Ibéricos, SA                         duration of the infringement alleged.
('Hisalba'), represented by Michael Schutte, of the Berlin
Bar, instructed by Audrey Stacey Winter and Luis Suârez de            (!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .
Lezo Mantilla of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Axel Bonn, 62 Avenue
Guillaume,


title: Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-111/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96           I EN     |            Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 158/7
      necessary in order to comply fully with Council                 Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      Directive 91 /674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the                     European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance
                                                                                ( Case C-1 12/96
      undertakings (');
                                                                                ( 96/C 158 / 15 )
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the                Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
European Community directives are to be binding upon                  Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
each Member State to which they are addressed . The                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures                    Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
measures to the Commission .
                                                                      — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
(') OJ No L 374 , 1991 , p . 7 .                                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                            also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                            the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            necessary in order to comply fully with Council
                                                                            Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the                     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
     European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                     provisions relating to direct life assurance (') and
                        ( Case C-111 /96                                    amending Directives 79/267/EEC ( 2 ) and 90/619/EEC ( 3 )
                          ( 96/C 158/ 14 )                                  ( third life assurance directive );
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice . of the European Communities on
3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in             Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the           European Community directives are to be binding upon
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 each Member State to which they are addressed . The
                                                                      Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
                                                                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
— declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its         measures to the Commission .
      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
      also to communicate to the Commission in due time               (') OJ No L 360, 1992 , p . 1 .
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions             ( 2 ) OJ No L 63 , 1979 , p . 1 .
      necessary in order to comply fully with Council                 ( 5 ) OJ No L 330 , 1990 , p . 50.
      Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
      coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
      assurance (') and amending Directives 73/239/EEC ( 2 )
      and     88/357/EEC ( 3 )     ( third non-life   insurance       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial
      directive );                                                    gericht by order of that court of 8 February 1996 in the case
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      of 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez and 2 . Gregorio Gomez
                                                                          Rodriguez v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-113 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/ 16 )
Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
European Community directives are to be binding upon
each Member State to which they are addressed . The                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures                    European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into             ( Federal Social Court ), Thirteenth Chamber, of 8 February
Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such                  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 5 April
measures to the Commission .                                           1996 , in the case of 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez and
                                                                      2 . Gregorio Gomez Rodriguez v. Landesversicherungs
(') OJ No L 228 , 1992 , p . 1 .                                      anstalt ( Regional Insurance Office ) Rheinprovinz, on the
( 2 ) OJ No L 228 , 1973 , p . 3 .                                    following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 172 , 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                       1 . Is Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( )
                                                                             to be as meaning that the provision contained therein on


title: Case C-117/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/13
6. Should the reply to Question 4 be in the negative:                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel
                                                                        de Paris (13th Chamber) in the case of Ministère Public v
    In order to comply with the obligation of cooperation and                                  Claude Laguillaumie
    solidarity incumbent under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
    Article 10 EC) on national authorities, in particular the                                    (Case C-116/00)
    courts, and with the principle of effectiveness, must
    application of national rules of substantive or procedural
    law curtailing the ability to assert claims which are well                                   (2000/C 163/22)
    founded under Community law, such as in the present
    case a claim founded on State liability, be deferred pending
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    full elucidation of the substance of the claim at Community
                                                                        European Communities by request received at the Court
    law, if necessary following a reference to the Court of
                                                                        Registry on 27 March 2000 from the Cour d’Appel de Paris
    Justice for a preliminary ruling?
                                                                        (13th Chamber) for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor) v Claude Laguillaumie.
                                                                        The Cour d’Appel de Paris (13th Chamber) asks the Court of
                                                                        Justice to rule on the compatibility of the decree of 1 April
                                                                        1992 and the ministerial decrees of 12 November 1992 and
                                                                        30 August 1996 authorising Eco Emballage SA and granting
                                                                        it exclusive rights in French territory to the reclamation of all
                                                                        products other than glass and medicines, with the principles
                                                                        laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 81
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                        EC), Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 82
Münster by order of 23 February 2000 in the case of
                                                                        EC), Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991, Directive
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service S.à.r.l.
                                                                        83/189/EEC (2) of 28 March 1983, Articles 30 and 36 of the
                      v Finanzamt Borken
                                                                        Treaty of Rome (now, after amendment, Articles 28 and 30
                                                                        EC) and Directive 94/62/EC (3) of 20 December 1994.
                         (Case C-115/00)
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
                         (2000/C 163/21)                                    Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
                                                                            procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
                                                                            standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (3) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
European Communities by order of 23 February 2000 by the                    20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
Finanzgericht Münster (Finance Court, Münster), which was                   L 365, p. 10).
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Andreas Hoves Internationaler
Transport-Service S.à.r.l. v Finanzamt Borken on the following
questions:
1. Does Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93
    of 25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) preclude
    national rules which result in motor vehicle tax being
    charged for the use of commercial goods vehicles which
    are registered in another Member State of the European
    Union, for which a cabotage authorisation has been issued
                                                                        Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Commission of
    in that Member State, which carry out cabotage operations
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
    in the Federal Republic of Germany and which have their
    regular base there?
                                                                                (Case C-117/00)
2. Does Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of
    25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), in cases like that                                   (2000/C 163/23)
    mentioned in Question 1, preclude national rules such as
    the second half of the second sentence of Paragraph 1(1)(2)
    of the Kraftfahrzeugsteuergesetz (KraftStG, Law on Motor            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    Vehicle Tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 1(1)(3) of the           Justice of the European Communities on 27 March 2000 by
    KraftStG?                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
                                                                        agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                   conserve habitat and avoid erosion, and, moreover, it has
                                                                              failed to avoid habitat deterioration negatively affecting
                                                                              wild bird species of Annex 1 of the Birds Directive as well
                                                                              as regularly occurring migratory species present on the
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to              Complex, the decline of which is not disputed by the Irish
    comply with Article 3 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) in                      authorities.
    respect of the Red Grouse (Lagopus lagopus), and with
    Article 4(4), first sentence, of Directive 79/409/EEC and
    Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) in respectf of the           (1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex Special Protection Area,                     vation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).
    Ireland has failed to comply with these Directives and with          (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
    its obligations under the Treaty,                                        of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
                                                                             22.7.1992, p. 7).
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          de Mons (Eighth Chamber) by order of that court of
                                                                         20 March 2000 in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
                                                                         National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indé-
                                                                                pendants
1) Failure to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient
    diversity and area of habitats for Red Grouse                                                  (Case C- 118/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/24)
    Having regard to the identification of Red Grouse as one
    of the 12 most threatened breeding bird species in Ireland,          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the dependancy of Red Grouse on hill-land and bog                    European Communities by an order of the Cour de Travail
    habitat, the dependancy of Red Grouse on heather, which              (Labour Court), Mons (Eighth Chamber) of 20 March 2000,
    is known to be seriously affected by overgrazing, the                which was received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2000,
    recognition of the need for hill-land and bog habitat                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
    conservation measures to benefit the Red Grouse, the                 National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
    emergence and persistence of a widespread problem of                 on the following questions:
    sheep overgrazing on hill-land and bog habitat associated
    with Red Grouse since 1981, the ineffectiveness of
                                                                         1. Must Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be
    measures to combat this overgrazing, the evidence of
                                                                              interpreted as being applicable to the situation of a person
    significant decline in the range of the Red Grouse and the
                                                                              covered by social insurance, as a self-employed worker,
    preventive and precautionary principles, the Commission
                                                                              who has instituted legal proceedings against an adminis-
    considers that Ireland has failed to meet its obligations to
                                                                              trative decision of the institution responsible for the social
    safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for
                                                                              security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
    the species in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
                                                                              the EU applying an anti-overlapping rule of European
    79/409/EEC (the Birds Directive):
                                                                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles 12 and 46), that
                                                                              decision having been confirmed by the national court
                                                                              hearing the case in that Member State and the judgment
2) Damage to Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex SPA                                  not having been notified by the parties and therefore
                                                                              remaining subject to appeal, even though a decision given
                                                                              by the CJEC after that judgment, in a similar case,
                                                                              interpreting Articles 12 and 46 of that regulation, held
    Inasmuch as Ireland has allowed a problem of overgrazing                  that a Community anti-overlapping rule should not be
    to occur in the Complex since 1981, it must be considered                 applied in those circumstances in so far as such application
    to have failed to respect Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC             of Article 95a(5) by the national institution responsible
    (the Habitats Directive), and, prior to the coming into force             for the social security of self-employed workers to the
    of that provision, Article 4(4), first sentence, of the Birds             abovementioned insured person, following the judgment
    Directive. To the extent that Ireland relies on State                     of the CJEC, to ensure that the rights of that insured person
    acquisition, the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme                    are reviewed, and Article 95a(5) limit the effects of the
    and related measures to safeguard the Complex, it cannot                  abovementioned CJEC judgment, it being necessary, in
    be considered to have taken all the appropriate measures                  order, in the event of proceedings being brought, to give
    in relation to Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. In                 effect to the said Article 95a(5), for a new application to
    particular, Ireland has not ensured that, over the entire                 be made by the insured with respect to his rights and for a
    area of the Complex, sheep stocking rates are such as to                  new decision to be adopted thereafter?


title: Case C-102/05: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Skatteverket v A and B (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Free movement of capital — Freedom of establishment — Taxation — Dividends paid in respect of shares distributed by a close company — Wage rules — Taxation of those dividends as income from assets — Calculation of a flat-rate yield — Percentage of capital invested and fraction of salaries — Branch established in a third country — Failure to take into account employees' wages at this branch)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/8

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten — Sweden) — Skatteverket v A and B
   (Case C-102/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Free movement of capital - Freedom of establishment - Taxation - Dividends paid in respect of shares distributed by a ‘close company’ - ‘Wage rules’ - Taxation of those dividends as income from assets - Calculation of a flat-rate yield - Percentage of capital invested and fraction of salaries - Branch established in a third country - Failure to take into account employees' wages at this branch)
   (2007/C 170/14)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: A and B
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Taxation of dividends paid by small public limited companies — Tax allowance corresponding to a notional return on capital invested which takes account of salaries paid by the company and its subsidiaries or branches in so far as those salaries are taxable in Sweden — Taking into account of salaries paid by a branch in a non-member State
   Operative part of the order
   A national measure which, in the context of taxation on share dividends as income from assets up to the limits of a flat-rate yield calculated by applying a specific percentage to a base including, besides the capital invested by the shareholder, a fraction of the salaries paid to employees of the company issuing the dividends, does not permit salaries of workers employed in a branch of this company, or by one of its subsidiaries to be taken into account, in a third country, seriously restricts freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC et seq. Those articles cannot be pleaded in circumstances involving the establishment of a company of a Member State in a third country.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case T-91/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2007 — Theofilopoulos v Commission (Action for compensation — Application for return of letters of guarantee — Court of First Instance not having jurisdiction — Inadmissibility of action — Action clearly devoid of legal foundation)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2007 — Theofilopoulos v Commission
   (Case T-91/06) (1)

   (Action for compensation - Application for return of letters of guarantee - Court of First Instance not having jurisdiction - Inadmissibility of action - Action clearly devoid of legal foundation)
   (2007/C 82/84)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Nikolaos Theofilopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by P. Miliarakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by L. Ström van Lier and I. Chatzigiannis, agents)
   Subject-matter
   Action for compensation and application seeking the return of letters of guarantee.
   Operative part

               1)

               The action is dismissed.

               2)

               Mr Nikolaos Theofilopoulos is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006.


title: Case C-346/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Robert Hans Conijn against Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte-Altstadt

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Robert Hans Conijn against Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte-Altstadt
   (Case C-346/04)
   (2004/C 251/16)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) of 26 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Robert Hans Conijn against Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte-Altstadt on the following question:
   Is a situation whereby a national of another Member State with restricted tax liability in Germany, unlike a person with unrestricted tax liability, may not deduct from his total income as special expenditure the costs incurred by him in obtaining tax advice contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?


title: Case C-247/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/15

         Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-247/07)
   (2007/C 170/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt all of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC (2) and 96/61/EC (3), or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of that Directive.

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 156, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ L 175, p. 40.

      (3)  OJ L 257, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-249/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the European Communities (Members of the temporary staff — Termination of contract — Calculation of notice — Leave not taken)

text:
22.2.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 44/25
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               residing in Brussels, represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van
                                                                           Gehuchten, Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                        of 5 December 2002                                 bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application
in Case T-249/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the                     for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to appoint
                    European Communities ( 1)                              the applicant to the post of Head of Unit 2 ‘Motor vehicles and
                                                                           other means of transport’ within Directorate F ‘Consumer
(Members of the temporary staff — Termination of contract                  goods and capital goods industries’ within the Directorate-
          — Calculation of notice — Leave not taken)                       General for Competition (COM/113/99) and of its decision to
                                                                           appoint a different applicant to the post and an application for
                                                                           damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                            (2003/C 44/45)
                                                                           composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
                                                                           Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
In Case T-249/00: Paul Edwin Hoyer, a former member of                     1.     Joined Cases T-338/00 and T-376/00;
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by               2.     Dismissed the action in Case T-376/00 as inadmissible;
G. van der Wal, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Com-                    3.     In case T-338/00 ordered the Commission to pay the applicant
munities (Agents: initially G. Valsesia and C. Van der Hauwaert,                  the sum of EUR 2 500;
and subsequently F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart)
— application for the annulment of the Commission’s                        4.     Dismissed the remainder of the action in Case T-338/00;
decisions of 14 June 2000 concerning the calculation of the
final date of notice when the applicant’s contract as a member
of the temporary staff was terminated (Decision No R/78/                   5.     Ordered each of the parties in Case T-376/00 to bear their
2000) and determining the number of days’ leave not taken                         own costs;
when he left (Decision No R/26/2000 — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President,             6.     Ordered the Commission to bear the costs in Case T-338/00.
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 Decem-
ber 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                       (1 ) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000 and C 61 of 24.2.2001.
1.     The application is dismissed.
2.     The parties will bear their own costs.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           in Case T-378/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                        of 12 December 2002                                                    European Communities ( 1)
in Joined Cases T-338/00 and T-376/00: Carmelo Morello                     (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement
       v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                       of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
                                                                           equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
(Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement                                       Actions for damages)
of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                        Actions for damages)                                                         (2003/C 44/47)
                            (2003/C 44/46)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-378/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-
In Joined Cases T-338/00 and T-376/00: Carmelo Morello, an                 mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                    represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,