title: Action brought on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr von Marschalck against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-162/95)

text:
No C 299/ 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
That      legislative   omission     unjustifiably    penalizes      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
manufacturers in those countries where the real rate of
financing costs is higher than 6,75% , and particularly              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Italian manufacturers, since in Italy the interest rate in           in Case T-20/ 94 .
question is 11,65% .
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules
manifestly infringe :
                                                                     Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Eridania
                                                                     Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council
— Article 40 of the EEC Treaty , which excludes any                                       of the European Union
     discrimination between producers or consumers within                                     ( Case T-168/95 )
     the Community, and
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/28 )
— Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty, since the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     mechanism in question places unjustified obstacles to
     applying free market principles to Italian producers . The
     distortion in question increases the competitiveness of         An action against the Council of the European Union was
     foreign products on the Italian market while decreasing         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     that of Italian products on other Community                     Communities on 5 September 1 995 by Eridania Zuccherifici
     markets .                                                       Nazionali SpA , with its registered office in Genoa , and
                                                                     Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA , with its
                                                                     registered office in Padua ( the Eridania-Zuccherifici
                                                                     Nazionali SpA Group ); Societa Sadam Zuccherifici , a
                                                                     division of Societa Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA,
                                                                     Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA and Societa Sadam
                                                                     Abruzzo SpA, all registered in Bologna , and Societa
                                                                     Zuccherifico del Molise SpA, with its registered office in
                                                                     Termoli ( the Sadam Zuccherifici Group ); Societa Fondiaria
Action brought on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr                Industriale Romagnola SpA, with its registered office in
von Marschalck against the Council of the European Union             Gesena , and Societa Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, with its
     and the Commission of the European Communities                  registered office in Pontelagoscuro ( the SFIR Group ),
                                                                     represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the High
                       ( Case T-162/95 )                             Court of Ireland , and by Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta,
                         ( 95/C 299/27 )                             of the Genoa Bar, with an adress for service in Luxembourg
                                                                     at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la
                                                                     Foire .
               (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
An action against the Council of the European Union and              — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1534/95 of 29 June
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    1995 fixing, for the 1 995/96 marketing year, the derived
before the Court of First Instance of the European                       intervention prices for white sugar , the intervention
Communities on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr von                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
Marschalck, represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild                  beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs
Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and                        ( OJ 1995 L 148 , p. 1 1 ); or in any event annul Article 1 ( f)
Dr Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte , Münster, with an                  thereof, fixing the derived intervention price for white
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     sugar for all the areas in Italy,
Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                     — annul       all   other     measures      in relation    to    the
                                                                         abovementioned, whether prior, subsequent or
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              howsoever connected , including Council Regulation
                                                                          ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 and successive
                                                                         amendments thereto , concerning the common
 1 . order the defendants to pay the applicant milk                      organization of the markets in the sugar sector, or in
      quota compensation ( SLOM-II ) pursuant to Council                  any event annul Articles 3 , 5 and 6 thereof and all
      Regulation No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 for the period                implementing measures,
      from 2 April 1984 to 15 June 1991 , amounting to
      DM 75 634,65 , together with 8 % interest from 1 9 May         — award costs in favour of the applicants .
      1992 , and to pay the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . join the present case to Case T-77/93 Hülseberg and
      Others v. Council and Commission and likewise stay the         A number of Italian sugar-manufacturing companies, which
      proceedings .                                                  form groups within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation


title: Case T-231/12: Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands/OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/27

         Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands/OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)
   (Case T-231/12)
   2012/C 227/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Heywood, USA) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

      Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 1124/2011-4) insofar as it rejects the Opposition in relation to all goods in class 25; and

               —

               to order the Applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Opponent

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JULIUS K9’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 542 201

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Two figurative marks depicting a dog, (crossed) bone(s) and the alphanumeric combination ‘K 9’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-23/05: Action brought on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Fournier against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

         Action brought on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Fournier against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-23/05)
   (2005/C 82/68)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Fournier, residing in Brussels, represented by A. Theissen, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decisions to award zero ‘DG priority points’ to the applicant in the 2003 promotion procedure; to reject his appeal to the Promotions Committee seeking the award to the applicant of ‘DG priority points’ (or of ‘appeal’ points or of priority points by whatever description); to refuse to award priority points for work in the interest of the institution under Article 9 of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material loss suffered;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official seconded to the Court of Justice in the interests of the service from 1 March 2002 to 6 October 2003, raises an objection of illegality against the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations because of a lack of comparison of his merits with those of other officials in other Directorates General. He also claims that most of the categories of priority points are illegal because they are contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination.
   The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the General Provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, as well as of Article 2(1) and Article 6(3), (4) and (5) of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant also pleads infringement of the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant claims finally that there were also procedural irregularities, misuse of powers, failure to state reasons and to inform him of various measures and decisions, as well as manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case C-411/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014  — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Sanco, SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark representing a chicken — Opposition of the proprietor of a national figurative mark representing a chicken — Partial rejection of the opposition)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/8

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Sanco, SA
   (Case C-411/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark representing a chicken - Opposition of the proprietor of a national figurative mark representing a chicken - Partial rejection of the opposition))
   2014/C 261/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Sanco, SA (represented by: A. Segura Roda, abogado)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-73/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/33

         Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-73/08)
   (2008/C 107/54)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Henning, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 26 November 2007 claiming repayment of the sum of EUR 23 228,07 in connection with the ‘Daphne Grant Agreement JLS/DAP/2004-1/080/YC’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the Daphne II programme (1). By debit note of 26 November 2007, the defendant reclaimed from the applicant part of the payment made in connection with this agreement. The applicant brought the present action against that decision.
   The applicant claims in support of its action, first, that the contested decision is in breach of the obligation to state reasons. Second, the principle of a fair hearing has been infringed, as the applicant was not allowed an appropriate period of time to comment and to submit additional documents. Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision is based on an erroneous assessment of the facts.

      (1)  Decision No 803/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 adopting a programme of Community action (2004 to 2008) to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (the Daphne II programme) (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 1).


title: Case T-234/14: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Mammoet Salvage BV v Commission (‘Action for declaration that an institution has failed to act and for damages — Contractual liability — Non-contractual liability — Plea of inadmissibility — Eighth European Development Fund — Works to remove 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou — Contract concluded between the applicant and Mauritania and taken up by the Commission for funding by the European Union — Execution of a contract — Report on the end date for payments from the European Union under the contract — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/24

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Mammoet Salvage BV v Commission
   (Case T-234/14) (1)

   ((‘Action for declaration that an institution has failed to act and for damages - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Plea of inadmissibility - Eighth European Development Fund - Works to remove 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou - Contract concluded between the applicant and Mauritania and taken up by the Commission for funding by the European Union - Execution of a contract - Report on the end date for payments from the European Union under the contract - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’))
   (2015/C 171/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Mammoet Salvage BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P.Kuypers and A.Schadd, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.Van Nuffel and S.Bartlet, agents)

      Re:

   An action under article 265 of TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully refrained from acceding to the applicant’s request to extend the period for payments from the European Union pursuant to the contract for the work of removing 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou (Mauritania) between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the applicant and accepted for financing by the Commission under the Eighth European Development Fund and, in the alternative, an action ordering the Commission to pay the invoices issued by the applicant under the above-mentioned contract on the basis of the contractual liability of the European Union and, in the further alternative, an action seeking recognition of the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mammoet Salvage is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case F-94/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/30

         Action brought on 28 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-94/11)
   2011/C 355/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO to resume open competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and to call the applicant back for a fresh oral test, and annulment of the decision to exclude him from that competition on the ground of his failure to attend that test.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decisions of 11 February and 12 August 2011;

               —

               Declare the invitation of 14 January 2011 to the oral test unlawful;

               —

               Rule that a mere repeat of the applicant’s test is not appropriate to remedy the fundamental procedural defects found at the time of the applicant’s earlier action;

               —

               Rule that the defendant has the power to put the applicant on the reserve list even without a repeat of the test;

               —

               Rule that the defendant must adequately compensate the applicant for the disadvantage suffered by reason of the lapse of time and must avoid any discrimination in comparison with the successful candidates;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               As a precaution, an order for judgment in default.


title: Case C-200/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Combating nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure for the adoption of the act — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, European Commission
      (Case C-200/13 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Combating nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds of an Iranian bank - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure for the adoption of the act - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2016/C 211/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Bank Saderat Iran (represented by: D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and by S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the cross-appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Bank Saderat Iran in both sets of proceedings, except for the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

                  4.

                  Orders Bank Saderat Iran to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the cross-appeal.

                  5.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs of both sets of proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-28/13: Action brought on 27 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/57

         Action brought on 27 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-28/13)
   2013/C 207/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions making several deductions from the applicant’s salary for June, July, August, September and October 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the note of 6 July 2012 by which the PMO informs the applicant of its decision to follow the recommendation of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) of 30 March 2012 and states that: (i) it has recovered EUR 5 530 from the applicant’s salary for June 2012 (unduly paid allowances), (ii) it will deduct EUR 3 822,80 from the applicant’s salary for July 2012 (interest on late payments in respect of the unduly paid amounts), and (iii) it will deduct EUR 2 372 (repayment of medical expenses) and EUR 699,20 (interest on late payments) from the applicant’s salary for August 2012;

               —

               annul the deductions from the applicant’s salary made in June, August, September and October 2012 and, where necessary, in any other month in response to the implementation of the contested decision;

               —

               annul the note of 10 July 2012 requesting the deduction of a total sum of EUR 3 071,20 from the applicant’s salary for August 2012 by means of a single transaction, or if the amount is too high to be deducted in a single instalment, in accordance with a schedule of repayment over several months;

               —

               annul the note of 20 July 2012 notifying the applicant that his unit was not able to encode, in respect of his salary for July, the recovery of the sum of EUR 3 822,80 corresponding to interest on late payments, and that that amount will be recovered in its entirety from his salary for October 2012, following repayments made in August and September 2012;

               —

               annul in part the decision adopted on 17 December 2012, notified on the same date, in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint relating to the disputed daily subsistence allowances and penalties for delay;

               —

               order the Commission to pay default interest from June 2012, on EUR 5 530, August 2012 on an initial amount of EUR 1 535,60, September 2012 on an additional amount of EUR 1 535,60 and October 2012 on EUR 3 822,80, and until the time when those amounts have been repaid, taking into account the sum of EUR 3 071,20 repaid with the salary for January 2013, as the default interest is no longer payable as from that repayment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-103/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France)) — Philippe Derouin v Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Self employed workers living and working in France — General social contribution — Social debt repayment contribution — Account taken of income received in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double taxation treaty)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France)) — Philippe Derouin v Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf)
   (Case C-103/06) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Self employed workers living and working in France - General social contribution - Social debt repayment contribution - Account taken of income received in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double taxation treaty)
   (2008/C 128/05)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Philippe Derouin

      Defendant: Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région parisienne (Urssaf)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France) — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — Account taken for the purpose of calculating the ‘contribution sociale généralisée’ (general social contribution) and the ‘contribution pour le remboursement de la dette sociale’ (social debt repayment contribution) payable by a self-employed worker subject to French social legislation of income earned in another Member State and taxable in that State under a double-taxation convention.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State whose social legislation is alone applicable to a resident self employed worker, from excluding from the tax base for contributions such as the General Social Contribution and the Social Debt Repayment Contribution income earned by the worker in another Member State, by application, in particular, of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-566/13: Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Jorge Ítalo Assis dos Santos v Banco de Portugal

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Jorge Ítalo Assis dos Santos v Banco de Portugal
   (Case C-566/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/42
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1. 2. 2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 6 June 2002 in Case C-133/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Aid for processing of skimmed milk into casein and caseinates)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 233/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       employment, on the sole ground that that student completed her
                                                                             secondary education in another Member State.
                            11 July 2002
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
in Case C-224/98 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Liège): Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop
                v Office national de l’emploi (1)
(Citizenship of the Union — Principle of non-discrimination
— National legislation granting the right to tideover allow-                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
ances to its nationals only on condition that they have
completed their secondary education in an educational estab-                                           (Fifth Chamber)
lishment in their own Member State — National seeking
first employment having completed her secondary education
                                                                                6 June 2002
  in an educational establishment in another Member State)
                                                                             in Case C-133/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
                          (2002/C 233/01)                                               mission of the European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)                           (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
                                                                             — Aid for processing of skimmed milk into casein and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                    caseinates)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/02)
In Case C-224/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal du
travail de Liège (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
proceedings pending before that court between Marie-Nathalie                                    in the European Court Reports)
D’Hoop and Office national de l’emploi on the interpretation
of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68                  In Case C-133/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement                     A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) supported by French Republic
for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition                (Agents: R. Abraham and C. Vasak) v Commission of the
1968 (II), p. 475), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                   European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn, K.-D. Borchardt
Iglesias, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and S. von              and C. van der Hauwaert): Application for partial annulment
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,                    of Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on
A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                       in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                      Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:                             Fund (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it excludes the
                                                                             applicant Member State from Community financing in the
Community law precludes a Member State from refusing to grant the            sum of NLG 39 182 606 by way of aid for the processing of
tideover allowance to one of its nationals, a student seeking her first      skimmed milk into casein and caseinates, the Court (Fifth
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         28.9.2002
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                      court between Liberexim BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     on the interpretation of Article 7(3) of the Sixth Council
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            Directive (77/338/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
a judgment on 6 June 2002, in which it:                                     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                            Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
                                                                            ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
                                                                            92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/
      1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                            388 and introducing simplification measures with regard to
      States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
                                                                            value added tax (OJ 1992 L 384, p. 47), the Court (Fifth
      Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
      Fund, in so far as it excludes the Kingdom of the Netherlands         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
      from Community financing in the sum of NLG 32 746 529 by
                                                                            J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-
      way of aid for the processing of skimmed milk into casein and
                                                                            trar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has
      caseinates;
                                                                            ruled:
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action by the Kingdom of the
      Netherlands;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      five sixths of the costs and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to
      pay one sixth of the cost;                                            1.    Where goods, transported by road under the external Com-
                                                                                munity transit arrangements, are placed on the Community
                                                                                market after a number of irregularities have been committed in
4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                                respect of those goods in various Member States, the goods
                                                                                cease to be covered by those arrangements within the meaning
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                        of Article 7(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                                17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council
                                                                                Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending
                                                                                Directive 77/388 and introducing simplification measures with
                                                                                regard to value added tax, on the territory of the Member State
                                                                                where the first operation which can be regarded as a removal of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           the goods from customs supervision was carried out.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                Any act or omission which prevents, if only for a short time,
                             11 July 2002                                         the competent customs authority from gaining access to goods
                                                                                under customs supervision and from monitoring them as
                                                                                provided for by the Community customs provisions must be
in Case C-371/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              regarded as a removal of the goods in question from customs
from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Liberexim BV v                               supervision.
                Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Importation by removal of goods
from customs arrangements — Transport by road under
the TIR arrangements or the external Community transit                      2.    Removal of goods from customs supervision does not require
arrangements — Changing of tractor — Unloading of trailer                         intent, but, instead, only that certain objective conditions be
and destruction of seals — Removal of goods from customs                          met.
                              supervision)
                           (2002/C 233/03)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                          (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-371/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a


title: Case C-524/10: Action brought on 11 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/20

         Action brought on 11 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-524/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/33
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, Agent)

      Defendant: Portugal

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, in applying a special scheme to farmers which does not comply with the scheme established by the VAT Directive (1) because it exempts them from the payment of VAT, and in applying a zero rate flat-rate compensation whilst at the same time making a substantial negative compensation in its own resources to offset the levying of VAT, the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 296 to 298 of the VAT Directive.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese legislation does not provide for the flat-rate compensation of farmers in respect of input VAT. Following an audit of own resources for the years 2004 and 2005, carried out in Portugal on 13 and 14 November 2007, the Portuguese authorities reported that input VAT not deducted by farmers subject to the special scheme had increased to approximately 5.3% and 7.9% of their sales in 2004 and 2005 respectively. Since they took the view that the VAT levied in the farming sector was therefore excessive, the Portuguese authorities made a negative compensation of approximately EUR 70 million in 2004 in its calculations of the basis of assessment of own resources. After examining in detail whether the special scheme applied to farmers in Portugal is compatible with the VAT Directive, the Commission concludes that the Portuguese Republic does not comply with the obligations laid down by Articles 296 to 298 of the VAT Directive. The common flat-rate scheme laid down by the VAT Directive requires an appropriate compensation percentage to be set whenever the relevant macro-economic statistics show that the input VAT levied on farmers subject to that special scheme was not zero or close to zero.
   While it is true that Member States are not allowed to set flat-rate compensation percentages which exceed the input VAT levied, since such excessive compensation would constitute State aid to the sectors concerned, it cannot be inferred from this that the Portuguese legislation, which does not provide for any compensation for farmers subject to the special scheme, is compatible with the VAT Directive. Member States may not freely disregard the macro-economic statistics and decide simply that no compensation will be paid in respect of the input VAT levied. If that were the case, the Member State would be applying to its farmers a special scheme substantially different, in its design and objectives, from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers as laid down and regulated in Chapter 2 of Title XII of the VAT Directive.
   The Commission is of the view that the special scheme established by the Portuguese legislation for the transactions carried out by farmers is not a correct and consistent application of that common scheme. In fact, the legislation in question simply exempts from tax, and therefore excludes completely from the VAT system, all farmers who do not opt for the normal taxation arrangements. Bearing in mind that the farmers covered by the scheme still represent a significant proportion of the Portuguese farming sector, that option introduced by the national legislature is a serious breach of the principle that tax should be of general application, which states that VAT must be levied as generally as possible and apply to all the stages of the production and distribution of goods and to the provision of services. In addition, the establishment of an exemption applicable to the transactions carried out by farmers is not laid down in any of the provisions of the VAT Directive and directly contradicts the terms of Article 296(1) thereof, which allows Member States only to choose between three well-defined systems for the taxation of farmers: the application of the normal arrangements, the application of the simplified scheme provided for in Chapter 1 of Title XII or the application of the common flat-rate scheme provided for in Chapter 2 of that title.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-472/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — H. Lundbeck and Lundbeck v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/47

         Action brought on 30 August 2013 — H. Lundbeck and Lundbeck v Commission
   (Case T-472/13)
   2013/C 325/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark); and Lundbeck Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Subiotto, QC, and T. Kuhn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision C(2013) 3808 final of 19 June 2013, served to the applicants on 21 June 2013, in case COMP/39.226 — Lundbeck;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to that decision;

               —

               In the further alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the applicants pursuant to that decision;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               Take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Defendant wrongly concluded that Lundbeck and the other undertakings that were parties to the agreements were actual or potential competitors under Article 101(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant wrongly assessed the relevance under Article 101(1) TFEU of value transfers in the context of patent settlement agreements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Defendant’s conclusion that the patent settlement agreements restricted competition by object under Article 101(1) rests on a wrongful application of the established principles on restrictions by object.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant’s decision errs and lacks reasoning in dismissing the ‘Scope-of-the-Patent Test’ as the relevant standard for the competition law assessment of patent settlement agreements under article 101(1) TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant’s decision mischaracterizes Lundbeck’s actions and fails to explain how these unilateral actions are relevant for a finding of infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant failed to consider all the circumstances surrounding the agreements and erroneously concluded that their intended scope went beyond the scope of Lundbeck’s patent rights.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Defendant failed to carry out a proper examination of the efficiencies arising from the agreements under article 101(3) TFEU.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Defendant’s decision infringes Lundbeck’s rights of defense, because the Defendant has changed the constituent elements of the alleged infringement between the issuance of the statement of objections and the decision, without affording Lundbeck an opportunity of being heard.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Defendant wrongly imposed a fine on Lundbeck despite the novelty of the factual and legal issues raised in this case, thereby also violating the principle of legal certainty.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the Defendant wrongly calculated the fines imposed on Lundbeck.


title: Case T-139/12: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014  — Adler Mode v OHIM — Cluett, Peabody (Fairfield)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/37

         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Adler Mode v OHIM — Cluett, Peabody (Fairfield)
   (Case T-139/12) (1)

   2014/C 194/50
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-53/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Civil-law notaries — Nationality condition — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Directives 89/48/EEC and 2005/36/EC)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-53/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Civil-law notaries - Nationality condition - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Directives 89/48/EEC and 2005/36/EC)
   2011/C 204/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, M. Aufner and G. Holley, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Kemper, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: L. Ostrovska, K. Drēviņa and J. Barbale, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Veres and M. Fehér, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, C. Herma and D. Lutostańska, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 and 45 EC — Failure to transpose, as regards the profession of notary, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — National legislation making the exercise of the profession of notary subject to the condition of nationality — Concept of ‘activity connected with the exercise of official authority’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality condition for access to the profession of notary, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Austria, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-168/07: Order of the President of the Court of 11 August 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — AXA Belgium SA v État Belge, Administration de la TVA, de l’enregistrement et des domains (État Belge), Administration de l’inspection spéciale des impôts, inspection de Mons 3 (État Belge)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 August 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — AXA Belgium SA v État Belge, Administration de la TVA, de l’enregistrement et des domains (État Belge), Administration de l’inspection spéciale des impôts, inspection de Mons 3 (État Belge)
   (Case C-168/07) (1)

   2010/C 11/31

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-1/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 November 2012 — Soukup v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Evaluation of the oral test)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 November 2012 — Soukup v Commission
   (Case F-1/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Evaluation of the oral test)
   2013/C 46/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zdenek Soukup (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: initially by É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers, and subsequently by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, acting as Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/144/09 not to enter the applicant on the reserve list and the decision to enter another candidate on that list, and compensation for the material and non-material damage thereby suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Soukup to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011, p. 36.


title: Case T-33/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 December 2005  — Infront WM AG v Commission of the European Communities (Television broadcasting — Directive 89/552/EEC — Directive 97/36/EC — Article 3a — Events of major importance for society — Admissibility — Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — Infront WM AG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-33/01) (1)

   (Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552/EEC - Directive 97/36/EC - Article 3a - Events of major importance for society - Admissibility - Infringement of essential procedural requirements)
   (2006/C 48/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG (Zug (Switzerland)) (represented initially by C. Lenz, A. Bardong, lawyers, and E. Batchelor, Solicitor, and subsequently by C. Lenz, E. Batchelor, R. Denton, Solicitors, F. Carlin, Barrister, and M. Clough QC)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, and by J. Flynn QC)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, acting as Agent, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by J. Collins and subsequently by R. Caudwell and finally by M. Berthell and by K. Parker QC, European Parliament, represented by C. Pennera and M. Moore, acting as Agents, and Council of the European Union, represented by A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop, acting as Agents,
   Application for
   annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission adopted under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60),
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               annuls the decision of the Commission contained in its letter of 28 July 2000 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

               2)

               dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3)

               orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Parliament to bear the applicant's costs arising from their interventions;

               4)

               orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant, apart from those referred to at 3, above;

               5)

               orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134 of 05. 05. 2001.


title: Case C-266/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 27 May 2011 — Dansk Funktionærforbund, Serviceforbundet, acting on behalf of Frank Frandsen v Cimber Air A/S

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 27 May 2011 — Dansk Funktionærforbund, Serviceforbundet, acting on behalf of Frank Frandsen v Cimber Air A/S
   (Case C-266/11)
   2011/C 311/24
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dansk Funktionærforbund, Serviceforbundet, acting on behalf of Frank Frandsen

      Defendant: Cimber Air A/S

      Question referred

   Is Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on all forms of discrimination on grounds of age precludes national rules from upholding a collective agreement between an airline company and the trade organisation representing that company’s pilots which provides for compulsory retirement at 60 years of age, when that agreement provision, which applied also before the entry into force of the Council Directive and before the entry into force of the national implementing legislation, has as its purpose the protection of aviation safety on the basis of a general consideration of reduced performance ability with age, without a specific assessment of the individual pilot’s performance ability, but such that the individual pilot may apply to be allowed to continue in his employment for a year at a time following approval by a committee made up of employer and employee representatives?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Pargas Tingsrätt of 25 March 1998 in the case of Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf Gustafsson (Case C-97/98)

text:
C 166/10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.5.98
cultivated and disturbances caused by motorway and road             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
schemes.                                                            Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                    31 July 1997, in the case of the Commissioners of
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.                                           Customs and Excise against Midland Bank plc
(2) Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR 4221.                                        (Case C-98/98)
                                                                                (98/C 166/16)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Pargas Tingsrätt            Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 31 July 1997, which
of 25 March 1998 in the case of Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf          was received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1998, for a
                          Gustafsson                                preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
                       (Case C-97/98)                               Customs and Excise against Midland Bank plc, on the
                                                                    following questions:
                        (98/C 166/15)
                                                                    On the proper interpretation of Council Directive 67/227/
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              EEC (1) of 11 April 1967, in particular Article 2, and
European Communities by an order of the Pargas                      Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977, in
Tingsrätt (District Court) of 25 March 1998, which was              particular Article 17(2), (3) and (5), and having regard to
received at the Court Registry on 6 April 1998, for a               the facts of the present case:
preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf
Gustafsson on the following questions:
                                                                    (1) Is it necessary to establish a direct and immediate link
Ð Are fishing rights or spinning licenses goods' in                    between a particular input obtainable by a taxable
     accordance with the judgment in Case 7/68                          person acting as such and a particular transaction or
     Commission v Italian Republic [1968] ECR 423?                      transactions made by that person in order to:
                                                                        (a) establish the existence of an entitlement to deduct
Ð Does the amendment in Finland of the Law on Fishing
                                                                             tax charged in respect of the input; and
     1045/1996 constitute an obstacle to the free
     movement of goods according to the criteria laid
     down in Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837?                      (b) determine the extent of that entitlement?
Ð Does a leisure angler's recreational interest constitute a
                                                                    (2) If the answer to (1)(a) or (b) is in the affirmative, what
     permissible ground under Article 36 of the European
                                                                        is the nature of the direct and immediate link and, in
     Community's basic treaty?
                                                                        particular, in the case of a taxable person making both
                                                                        transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible and
Ð Does the present case involve agricultural products                   transactions in respect of which it is not:
     within the meaning of Article 37(4) of the Treaty of
     Rome?                                                              (a) is the test for determining the amount of input tax
                                                                             that is deductible any different as between
Ð Does the aforementioned legal rule have direct legal                       Article 17(2), (3) and (5) (and, if so, in which
     effect in accordance with the judgment in Case 6/64                     respects is it different); and
     Costa v ENEL (1)?
                                                                        (b) is such a person entitled to deduct all the input tax
                                                                             charged in respect of an input on the ground that
Ð Has sufficient       account   been   taken    of  farmers'
                                                                             the input was utilised as a consequence of making
     interests?
                                                                             a transaction falling within Articles 17(2) or 17(3),
                                                                             in particular Article 17(3)(c)?
Ð Does such an amendment of the Law on Fishing 1045/
     1996 concerning spinning contravene or not
     contravene the rules governing the free movement of            (3) If the answer to 1(a) or (b) is in the negative:
     goods (or the free provision of services) laid down in
     the European Community's basic treaty?                             (a) what is the link that has to be established; and
(1) ECR 1964, p. 614.
                                                                        (b) in the case of a taxable person making both
                                                                             transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible
                                                                             and transactions in respect of which it is not:


title: Case T-80/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — KIN (Wristwatch case) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design or model representing a wristwatch case — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Overall impression not different — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity — Community design court — Article 91 of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bell & Ross v OHIM — KIN (Wristwatch case)
   (Case T-80/10) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design or model representing a wristwatch case - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity - Community design court - Article 91 of Regulation No 6/2002)
   2013/C 171/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bell & Ross BV (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Guerlain, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: KIN AB (Upplands Väsby, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen and C. Galichet, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2009 (Case R 1285/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by KIN AB in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010


title: Case T-197/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015  — MEM v OHIM (MONACO) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark MONACO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 151(1) and Article 154(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — partial refusal of protection)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015 — MEM v OHIM (MONACO)
   (Case T-197/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark MONACO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 151(1) and Article 154(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - partial refusal of protection))
   (2015/C 065/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marques de l’État de Monaco (MEM) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Arnaud. Melgar, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2013 (Case R 113/2012-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark MONACO.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marques de l’État de Monaco (MEM) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999 in Case T-91/98: Jürgen Wettig v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Temporary staff - Classification - Article 32 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
20.11.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 333/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                     of 28 September 1999                                Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and
in Case T-612/97: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel                      Denis Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the
  GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      Commission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing Brussels as
                                                                         the applicant’s place of recruitment — the Court of First
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,
— Request for import licences — Case of hardship —                       and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; Y. Mottard, Legal Secretary,
   Transitional measures — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93)                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1999,
                                                                         in which it:
                        (1999/C 333/60)
                                                                         1. Dismisses the action;
                  (Language of the case: German)                         2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-612/97: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
GmbH, established in Ortrau (Germany), represented by Gert
Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
Marie-Adelaïde v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Hubert van Vliet), support-
ed by French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Christina Vasak) - application for the annulment of Com-
mission Decision K(97) 3274 final of 24 October 1997
rejecting the applicant’s request for the special grant of import            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
licences under the transitional measures provided for in
Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13                                         of 28 September 1999
February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in
bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and                  in Case T-91/98: Jürgen Wettig v Commission of the
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges, J. Palacio González,                           European Communities (1)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 September 1999 in which it:                                           (Officials — Temporary staff — Classification — Article 32
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations)
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of                             (1999/C 333/62)
     the Commission;
3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                                        (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                In Case T-91/98: Jürgen Wettig, a member of the temporary
                                                                         staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented for the purposes of the written
                                                                         procedure by Peter Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and for
                                                                         the purposes of the oral procedure by Charles Turk, of the
                                                                         Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                         at the latter’s Chambers, 13a Avenue Guillaume, v Commission
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of the European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, Christine
                                                                         Berardis-Kayser and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application for
                     of 28 September 1999                                annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 November 1997
                                                                         definitively classifying the applicant in grade A 5, step 1 — the
in Case T-28/98: J v Commission of the European Com-                     Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D.
                           munities (1)                                  Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
                                                                         Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Officials — Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regu-                judgment on 28 September 1999, in which it:
lations — Place of origin — Place of recruitment — Centre
                           of interests)                                 1. Dismisses the application;
                        (1999/C 333/61)                                  2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
In Case T-28/98: J, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by


title: Joined Cases C-393/07 and C-9/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Italian Republic v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the credentials of Beniamino Donnici — Member of the European Parliament — Verification of the credentials of a Member of the Parliament — Appointment of a member resulting from the withdrawal of candidates — Articles 6 and 12 of the 1976 Act)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Italian Republic v European Parliament
   (Joined Cases C-393/07 and C-9/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the credentials of Beniamino Donnici - Member of the European Parliament - Verification of the credentials of a Member of the Parliament - Appointment of a member resulting from the withdrawal of candidates - Articles 6 and 12 of the 1976 Act)
   2009/C 153/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, R. Adam, Agents, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato) (C-393/07)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia

      Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (represented by: M. Sanino, G. M. Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, avvocati) (C-9/08)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz, L. Visaggio, Agents, E. Cannizzaro, Professor)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Achille Occhetto (represented by: P. De Caterini and F. Paola, avvocati)

      Re:

   Annulment of Decision P6_TA-PROV(2007)0209 of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 concerning the verification of Beniamino Donnici’s credentials [2007/2121/(REG)], notified on 28 May 2007 — Member of the European Parliament — Verification of credentials — Appointment of a Member due to the withdrawal of candidates

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision 2007/2121(REG) of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of credentials of Mr Beniamino Donnici;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Donnici’s costs and those incurred by the Italian Republic as applicant;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic as intervener, the Republic of Latvia and Mr Occhetto to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-314/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Graz v Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH (Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement — Review procedures — Actions for damages — Unlawful award — National rule on liability based on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Graz v Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH
   (Case C-314/09) (1)

   (Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - Actions for damages - Unlawful award - National rule on liability based on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault)
   2010/C 317/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stadt Graz

      Defendants: Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

      In the presence of: Land Steiermark

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) and (7) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Award of a public contract in accordance with a decision of the appeal court which binds the contracting authority — Unlawfulness of the award of the public contract in consequence of an infringement of national legislation — Necessary conditions for an action for damages and interest — Principle of effectiveness

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the right to damages for an infringement of public procurement law by a contracting authority conditional on that infringement being culpable, including where the application of that legislation rests on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault and on the fact that the latter cannot rely on a lack of individual abilities, hence on the defence that it cannot be held accountable for the alleged infringement.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 07.11.2009.


title: Case C-159/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome
   (Case C-159/16)
   (2016/C 191/19)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’

      Defendant: Konkurences padome

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)?

               2.

               Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses?

               3.

               May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?


title: Case C-140/06: Action brought on  14 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         Action brought on 14 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-140/06)
   (2006/C 108/23)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Walker and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not taking the legal and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1), or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementation of the directive in domestic law expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12


Avis juridique important

|

E1996P0006

Request for an advisory opinion by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 1 March 1996 in the case of Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune (Case E-6/96)

Official Journal C 037 , 06/02/1997 P. 0015 - 0015

Request for an advisory opinion by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 1 March 1996 in the case of Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune (Case E-6/96) (97/C 37/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 1 March 1996 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 August 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Tore Wilhelmsens AS against Oslo kommune (the municipality of Oslo), on the following question:1. Is a refusal to grant a licence to sell beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume, with reference to the established exclusive right of Vinmonopolet, compatible with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement on State monopolies of commercial character?2. Is a refusal to grant a licence to sell beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume, with reference to the established exclusive right of Vinmonopolet, compatible with the principles of free movement of goods in Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement?3. Do EEA rules stipulate, to what extent it is the State or the municipality that is competent to decide applications for licences to sell alcohol, regardless of the content of the national legislative provisions on the competence given to municipalities to decide certain cases?4. Do EEA rules contain substantive provisions on the unconditional right of individuals to sell alcohol to the general public, regardless of national legislation stipulating a licensing system for sale of all types of alcohol to the general


title: Case C-197/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC — Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Article 9(1) — Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products — National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes — National legislation prohibiting the sale of tobacco products at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives — Concept of national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices — Justification — Protection of public health — World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-197/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - National legislation prohibiting the sale of tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’ - Concept of ‘national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices’ - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)
   2010/C 113/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J. S. Pilczer, J.-C. Gracia and B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — Fixing of minimum prices — Hindrance to free movement of goods — Protection of public health — Relevance of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (OJ 2004 L 213, p. 8)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for the retail sale of cigarettes released for consumption in France and a prohibition on selling tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case T-564/15: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Actions for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/26

      Order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
      (Case T-564/15) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the email of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) of 17 July 2015, relating to the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the call for proposals launched under the Connecting Europe Facility on the basis of the Multi-Annual Work Programme adopted in 2014 pursuant to Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 1921 of 26 March 2014 establishing the 2014 Multi-Annual Work Programme for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Removal from the register of C-21/95

text:
C 209/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
2. If so, is the fact of making membership of the                    above provisions require Member States to adapt their
    occupational pension scheme for medical specialists              legislation to comply with Community directives within
    . . . compulsory a measure adopted by a Member State             the periods prescribed therein. Although the period
    which nullifies the useful effect of the competition             prescribed in Article 3 of Directive 92/101/EEC expired on
    rules applicable to undertakings, or is this the case            1 January 1994, the Hellenic Republic had not adopted
    only under certain conditions, and if so, under which?           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                     necessary to comply with that directive.
3. If the last question must be answered in the negative,
                                                                     (1) OJ L 347, 28.11.1992, p. 64.
    can      other    circumstances     render     compulsory
    membership incompatible with Article 90 of the
    Treaty, and if so, which?
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 4.a Vara Criminal
                                                                     do Círculo do Porto by decision of that court of 21 April
                                                                     1998 in the case of MinisteÂrio PuÂblico against Maria
Action brought on 15 May 1998 by the Commission of                             AmeÂlia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-186/98)
                       (Case C-185/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/58)
                         (98/C 209/57)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by decision of the 4.a Vara
before the Court of Justice on 15 May 1998 by the                    Criminal do Círculo do Porto (Fourth Criminal Chamber,
Commission of the European Communities, represented                  Oporto Circuit) of 21 April 1998, which was received at
by M. Patakia, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an            the Court Registry on 18 May 1998, for a preliminary
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio PuÂblico against Maria
Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                     AmeÂlia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos on the following
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                   questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Ð did the Community legislation in force at the material
                                                                         time treat the conduct with which the defendants are
                                                                         charged as criminal?
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period
      prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council                        and
      Directive 92/101/EEC of 23 November 1992
      amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the formation of               Ð does a Member State have the power to impose
      public limited liability companies and the                         criminal sanctions on conduct which causes only
      maintenance and alteration of their capital (1), the               economic damage to the Community in respect of
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             which Community law only provides for civil
      under the EC Treaty and that directive,                            sanctions?
(2) in the alternative, declare that, by failing to
      communicate to the Commission the measures
      adopted in order to transpose the said directive into
      national law, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive,                  Removal from the register of C-21/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 209/59)
(3) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-21/95 (reference for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,           Regionale del Lazio): Toscana TV and Others v. Ministero
a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       delle Poste e Telcomunicazioni.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under
Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
action taken by the institutions of the Community. The