title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-196/99 P: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       N. Lacalle Mangas): Appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                             of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case
                                                                             T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission [1999] ECR II-645, seeking
                        of 2 October 2003                                    to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
in Case C-194/99 P: Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of                         (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by J. Rivas de
                 the European Communities (1)                                Andrés), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
                                                                             President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                      P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
                        producers of beams)                                  Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in
                         (2003/C 275/05)                                     which it:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             11 March 1999 in Case T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  in so far as the Court of First Instance declared the application
                                                                                for annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
                                                                                16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
In Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg                      Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and
(Germany) (represented by F. Montag): Appeal against the                           concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                            to be unfounded as regards the order that Siderúrgica Aristrain
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of                              Madrid SL pay a fine which also took into account the conduct
11 March 1999 in Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission                          of Aristrain Olaberría SL;
[1999] ECR II-347, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
part, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of                2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed               3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                 4.    Reserves the costs.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Thyssen Stahl AG to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                of 2 October 2003
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-198/99 P: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA
                                                                             (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                        of 2 October 2003
in Case C-196/99 P: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v                        (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                                                     producers of beams)
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                                                (2003/C 275/07)
                        producers of beams)
                         (2003/C 275/06)                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-198/99 P, Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Enside-
In Case C-196/99 P, Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL estab-                   sa), established in Avilés (Spain), (represented by S. Martínez
lished in Madrid (Spain) (represented by A. Creus Carreras and               Lage and J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster): Appeal against the


No C 229/26        | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 9 . 95
    to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 39 385,03 ,                     Removal from the register of Case T-221/93 ( )
    together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May                                       ( 95/C 229/57 )
    1992, and to pay the costs of the proceedings;
2 . join the present action to those already pending in Case                      (Language of the case: German)
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                      By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                    Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 European Communities ordered the removal from the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in         register of Case T-221 /93 : Volker Wobker v. Commission
Case T-20/94 .                                                      of the European Communities .
                                                                    (') OJ No C 270, 19 . 10 . 1992 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2000 in Case C-441/97 P: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission of the European Communities and Others (Appeal — ECSC — Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC (Fifth Aid Code) — State aid for steel undertakings in the Italian public sector — Misuse of powers — Principle of non-discrimination — Principle of necessity)

text:
10.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 79/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established in Rome, Italy, — the
                                                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), and F. Macken,
                                                                             Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
                      of 23 November 2000                                    trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
                                                                             2000, in which it:
in Case C-441/97 P: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and                         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Others v Commission of the European Communities and
                             Others (1)                                      2.    Orders Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preus-
                                                                                sag Stahl AG and Hoogovens Staal BV to pay the costs;
(Appeal — ECSC — Commission Decision No 3855/
91/ECSC (Fifth Aid Code) — State aid for steel undertakings                  3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Council of the European
in the Italian public sector — Misuse of powers — Principle                        Union to bear their own costs.
        of non-discrimination — Principle of necessity)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                          (2001/C 79/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-441/98 P: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, established                                        (Sixth Chamber)
in Düsseldorf (Germany), Thyssen Stahl AG, established in
Duisburg (Germany), Preussag Stahl AG, established in Salzgitt-                                   of 23 November 2000
er (Germany), and Hoogovens Staal BV, formerly Hoogovens
Groep BV, established in IJmuiden (Netherlands), represented                 in Case C-1/98 P: British Steel plc v Commission of the
by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and, in the case of                                European Communities and Others (1)
Hoogovens Staal BV, by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        (Appeal — ECSC — Commission Decision No 3855/
Chambers of A. May, of the Luxembourg Bar, 398 Route                         91/ECSC (Fifth Aid Code) — Individual Commission
d’Esch — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                   decisions authorising State aid for steel undertakings —
Instance of 24 October 1997 in Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsver-                  Competence of the Commission — Legitimate expectations)
einigung Stahl and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II-1963,
in which the Court of First Instance dismissed their action for                                        (2001/C 79/02)
the annulment of Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of
12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the
public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ 1994 L 112, p. 64), the                                    (Language of the case: English)
other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: P.F. Nemitz) Italian Republic                   In Case CA/98 P: British Steel plc (now Corus UK Ltd),
(Agent: Professor U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri), Council of             established in London, United Kingdom, represented by
the European Union, (Agents: S. Marquardt and A.P. Feeney)                   R. Plender QC, instructed by W. Sibree, Solicitor, with an


title: Case C-113/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Article 1(3)(b) — Concept of ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ — Article 2 — Consumer information and protection — Article 3(1)(8) — Place of origin or provenance of a foodstuff — Article 13(1) — Labelling of a prepackaged foodstuff — Article 13(4) — Packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 — Directive 2001/110/EC — Article 2(4) — Indication of the country or countries of origin of honey — Individual portions of honey packaged in cartons supplied to mass caterers — Individual portions sold separately or supplied to ultimate consumers as part of meals for an all-inclusive price — Indication of the country or countries of origin of that honey)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München
   (Case C-113/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Article 1(3)(b) - Concept of ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ - Article 2 - Consumer information and protection - Article 3(1)(8) - Place of origin or provenance of a foodstuff - Article 13(1) - Labelling of a prepackaged foodstuff - Article 13(4) - Packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 - Directive 2001/110/EC - Article 2(4) - Indication of the country or countries of origin of honey - Individual portions of honey packaged in cartons supplied to mass caterers - Individual portions sold separately or supplied to ultimate consumers as part of meals for an all-inclusive price - Indication of the country or countries of origin of that honey))
   (2016/C 419/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

      Intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that each of the individual portions of honey presented in the form of portion-cups closed by an aluminium seal and packed in cartons supplied to mass caterers constitutes a ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ where the mass caterers sell those portions separately or offer them for sale to the ultimate consumer as part of pre-prepared meals for an all-inclusive price.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-132/07: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 12 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Belgium)) — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/34

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 12 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Belgium)) — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV
   (Case C-132/07) (1)

   2009/C 141/61

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-389/00: Action brought on 20 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 4/2                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.1.2001
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by the Commission                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                  Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of that
                          lic of Germany                                court of 19 September 2000 in the cases of Giovanni
                                                                        Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione Frodi
                                                                        and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Politiche
                         (Case C-389/00)                                                               Agricole
                           (2001/C 4/02)
                                                                                (Cases C-390/00 and C-391/00)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                                        (2001/C 4/03)
ties on 20 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service,            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano (Bari District Court, Rutigliano
                                                                        Division) of 19 September 2000, received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 24 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione
                                                                        Frodi and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Poli-
                                                                        tiche Agricole on the following questions:
1.    Declare that, by adopting the AbfalIverbringungsgesetz
      (Law on the Transfer of Waste) of 30 September 1994,
      establishing a solidarity fund for the return of waste, the       (1) Is Law No 460 of 1987, Article 4 of which provides for
      Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations               penalties in respect of provisions of Community law laid
      under Articles 23 and 25 EC;                                            down by regulations which have now been repealed, (1)
                                                                              applicable for the purposes of enforcing rules laid down
                                                                              in new regulations?
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                        (2) Is the administrative penalty at issue disproportionate in
                                                                              effect to the offence, contrary to the principle of fair
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               punishment?
The Commission considers that the obligation on exporters of            (1) With reference, in particular, to Council Regulation No 822/87 of
waste under the German Abfallverbringungsgesetz to pay                      16 March 1987 (OJ L 84 of 27.3.1987, p. 1).
membership contributions to the solidarity fund is incompat-
ible with Community law in so far as the solidarity fund
assumes the costs of reimporting waste (including its disposal
and recycling) in the cases referred to in Articles 25 and 26 of
Council Regulation 259/93, (1) which are imposed on the
exporting Member State in the event of it being impracticable
to charge the notifier (Article 33(2) of Regulation 259/93). To
that extent, the contribution constitutes a burden imposed
unilaterally on domestic goods on account of their crossing
the frontier. Contrary to the defendant’s view, the relevant part
of the contribution cannot be regarded as appropriate payment           Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
for a service actually and individually provided by the adminis-        mission of the European Communities against the French
tration to an economic operator. The financing of the second-                                         Republic
ary State liability expressly provided for in Article 33(2) of
Regulation No 259/93 cannot be described as a ‘particular or
individual advantage’.                                                                            (Case C-418/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/04)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
    supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and
    out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), amended         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
    by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2408/98 of 6 November              Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
    1998 (OJ 1998 L 298, p. 19).                                        the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
                                                                        Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                        Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Action brought on 22 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-432/97)

text:
C 55/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Directive (in conjunction with Annex F, No 26) and the
                                                                     different ways in which gold is treated for tax purposes in
                                                                     certain Member States lead to distortions of competition.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a Directive                Consequently, the Commission submitted, as long ago as
shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each         28 October 1992, a proposal for a Directive relating to
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the            special arrangements applicable to gold, which provides
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid              for the general exemption from tax of transactions in
down in the Directive. That period expired on                        respect of what is known as investment gold and for the
31 December 1995 without Ireland having enacted the                  repeal of the abovementioned transitional rules; but no
provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred           Directive in those terms has to date been adopted by the
to in the conclusions of the Commission.                             Council. However, the issue in the present case is not
                                                                     whether the tax exemption in question has or has not
(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20.                                     proved to be necessary in order to protect the German
                                                                     gold market but rather the fact that that tax exemption
                                                                     does not constitute a means of preventing the effects of
                                                                     existing distortions of competition on the national market
                                                                     for which provision is made by the sixth Directive.
Action brought on 22 December 1997 by the Commission                 Lastly, the Federal Republic of Germany wrongly relies on
of the European Communities against the Federal                      the declaration of the Council and the Commission on
                    Republic of Germany                              Article 1(1)(e) of Council Directive 72/77/EEC on the
                       (Case C-432/97)                               approximation of VAT rates. That declaration must be
                                                                     read in conjunction with the provision to which it relates,
                          (98/C 55/38)                               namely Article 12(3)(e) of the sixth Directive. The third
                                                                     and fourth sentences of that provision require the Member
                                                                     States from 1 January 1993 to take all necessary measures
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                to combat fraud in the field of the taxation of transactions
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  in a respect of gold (including, in particular, a system
Communities on 22 December 1997 by the Commission                    giving the buyer the right to deduct tax). That provision
of the European Communities, represented by Enrico                   affords no basis for the conferral on the Member States of
Traversa, of its Legal Service, and Andreas Buschmann, a             any more extensive powers. According to the case-law of
national expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with             the Court of Justice, however, a declaration cannot be
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                invoked for the purposes of interpreting a provision of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                Community law where the content of the declaration does
Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                             not find expression in the provision in question and thus
                                                                     has no legal significance.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Ð declare that, by exempting from value added tax
    transactions in gold bars, gold coins ranking as legal
    tender and unprocessed gold and the negotiation of
    such transactions, the Federal Republic of Germany
    has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 2
    and 28a(1)(a) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/             Appeal brought on 22 December 1997 by IPK München
    EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                   GmbH against the judgment delivered on 15 October
    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes             1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
    Ð common systems of value added tax: uniform basis               of the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between
    of assessment (1), as most recently amended,                     IPK München GmbH and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                         (Case C-433/97 P)
    costs.
                                                                                (98/C 55/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 October
The sixth Directive affords no basis for the exemption               1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
provision introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany,             of the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between
with effect from 1 January 1993, as paragraph 4(8)(K) of             IPK München GmbH and the Commission of the
the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover taxes).                      European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities on 22 December
                                                                     1997 by IPK München GmbH, represented by Hans-
The Commission is conscious of the fact that the                     Joachim Prieû, Rechtsanwalt, 13 place des Barricades,
transitional rules contained in Article 28(3)(b) of the sixth        B-1000 Brussels.


title: Case C-310/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State, and of their children who are themselves nationals of a Member State — National of a Member State ceasing to work and leaving the host Member State — Enrolment of the children at a school — No means of subsistence — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 12 — Directive 2004/38)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-310/08) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State, and of their children who are themselves nationals of a Member State - National of a Member State ceasing to work and leaving the host Member State - Enrolment of the children at a school - No means of subsistence - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Directive 2004/38)
   2010/C 100/03
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal of England and Wales

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: London Borough of Harrow

      Defendants: Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales — Interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 475) — Wife who is a national of a non-member country and her children, themselves nationals of a Member State, who have joined her husband, a national of that Member State, in the United Kingdom where he was employed — Right of residence of the wife and children following the husband’s loss of status as an employed person and his departure from the United Kingdom

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992, without such a right being conditional on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that State.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-151/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia
   (Case C-151/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))
   (2015/C 363/15)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: D. Pelše, I. Kalniņš and K. Freimanis, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Tátrai and M. Fehér, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Republic of Latvia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case T-213/15: Order of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/60

         Order of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)
   (Case T-213/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 038/81)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A.C. Berger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: H.P. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: toom Baumarkt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 (Case R 657/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between toom Baumarkt GmbH and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0004

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 13 June 2000 in the case of Dr Johann Brändle (Case E-4/00)

Official Journal C 049 , 15/02/2001 P. 0008 - 0008

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 13 June 2000 in the case of Dr Johann Brändle(Case E-4/00)(2001/C 49/11)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 13 June 2000 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 June 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Johann Brändle, on the following question:Is the single practice rule applying without exception to all doctors under Liechtenstein national law, and in particular Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions which provides: "A doctor may pursue his occupation in a self-employed capacity, as a sole practitioner or jointly with others, only if he holds a licence authorising him to do so and only if he himself works on his own behalf in the practice concerned. A doctor may not operate more than one practice, whether as a sole practitioner or jointly with others" compatible with the EEA and/or with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) of 2 May 1992?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1996 in Case T-208/95: Miwon Co. Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Dumping - Monosodium glutamate - Commission Regulation finding a breach of a price undertaking and imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Subsequent adoption of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
No C 318/ 10          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan                    Action brought on 24 July 1996 by Edouard Dubois et Fils
Inghelram ) — application for the annulment of the decision          SA against the Commission of the European Communities
of 12 July 1993 establishing the applicant's staff report for                   and the Council of the European Union
the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1991 and,                                      ( Case T-l 13/96 )
in so far as necessary, the decision notified on 22 February
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/22 )
1 994 expressly rejecting his complaint against that report —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A.
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;                           (Language of the case: French)
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 26 September 1996 , in which it:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities and the Council of the European Union was
1 . dismisses the application;                                       brought before the Court of First Instance on 24 July 1996
                                                                     by Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, having its seat at Roubaix
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      ( France ), represented by Pierre Ricard, Avocat au Conseil
                                                                     d'Etat, and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                     Marc Feiler, 67 rue Ermesinde .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for
                                                                          the damage caused to the applicant by the repercussions
                        of 10 July 1996                                   on its activities as 'commissionnaire agree en douane '
in Case T-208/95 : Miwon Co . Ltd v. Commission of the                    ( authorized customs agent) of application of the Single
                  European Communities ( 1 )                              European Act establishing an area for the free movement
(Dumping — Monosodium glutamate — Commission                              of goods and services within the frontiers of the Member
Regulation finding a breach of a price undertaking and                    States from 1 January 1993 ,
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty — Action for
annulment — Subsequent adoption of a regulation                      — order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant a sum of
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Case not                        FF 112 339 702 as compensation for that damage,
                   proceeding to judgment)
                          ( 96/C 318/21 )                            — order the defendants to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: English)                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
In     Case  T-208/95 :     Miwon    Co . Ltd   established  at      The applicant company, whose principal business is that of
Dongdaemun-Ku ( Seoul, Republic of Korea ), represented              forwarding agent and connected activities, states that, in 16
by Jean-Francois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        of its establishments situated at various points on French
for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of A. F. Brausch,          territory, it availed itself of the ministerial authorization
8 rue Zithe, v. Commission of the European Communities               which it had been granted pursuant to the Code des
                                                                     Douanes ( Customs code ) to act as an authorized customs
( Agent: Nicholas Khan ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1754/95 of 18 July 1995              agent, a profession which, for varying remuneration, carries
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of               out on behalf of others, customs formalities consisting in the
monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia , the                  detailed declaration of goods crossing frontiers for the
                                                                     purposes of the collection of duties .
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand ( 2), in so far as it
concerns Miwon Co . Ltd — the Court of First Instance
( Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: R.             The applicant also states that application, from 1 January
Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, J.         1993 , of the Single European Act establishing an area
Azizi and R. Moura-Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            without internal frontiers for the member countries had
made an order on 10 July 1996 , in which it orders :                 profound repercussions from the financial and social point
                                                                     of view on the businesses operated by authorized customs
                                                                     agents . It points out, first, that the measures taken by the
1 . the case is not to proceed to judgment;                          Community authorities to mitigate those problems could
                                                                     only very partially make up for the considerable effects of
2 . each party shall bear its own costs.                             the abolition of the internal frontiers of the Community for
                                                                     the profession of authorized customs forwarding agents
                                                                     and, secondly, that those measures were not compensatory
(•) OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 170, 1995 , p . 4 .
                                                                     in nature at all but sought solely to alleviate the exceptional
                                                                     financial burden incurred in the management of
                                                                     forwardings depots which were required to continue
                                                                     operating until 31 December 1992 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1995 in Case T-548/93: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty - Taking of bets on horse-races - Exclusive rights of a national grouping of undertakings - Agreements and concerted practices - Abuse of dominant position - Article 90 of the Treaty - Lack of Community interest - Past infringements of the competition rules)

text:
No C 286/ 12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 10 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
              ( First Chamber, extended composition )                                       of 18 September 1995
                        of 18 September 1995                            in Case T-471 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission of
in Case T-49/93 : Société Internationale de Diffusion et                               the European Communities f 1 )
        d'Edition ( SIDE ) v. Commission of the European                (Competition — State aid — Levy on bets taken on
                           Communities ( 1 )                            horse-races — Transfer of resources to an undertaking
                                                                                established in another Member State)
(State aid — Articles 92 and 93 — Actions for annulment of
               measures — Aid for exports of books)                                               ( 95/C 286/29 )
                             ( 95/C 286/28 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case T-471 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA, represented by
                                                                        Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, of the Bar of
In Case T-49/93 : Societe Internationale de Diffusion et                England and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an
d'Édition ( SIDE), established in Bagneux (France),                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich v. Commission
represented by Jean-Marie Meffre, Claire Adenis-Lamarre
and Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             of the European Communities ( agent : Eric White ),
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 ,             supported by French Republic ( agents : Edwige Belliard,
Rue Goethe v. the Commission of the European                            Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) — application
                                                                        pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration
Communities ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
                                                                        that the Commission 's decision of 1 8 January 1 993 rejecting
Belorgey ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 18 May 1993 declaring certain                  the applicant's complaint ( IV/34.013 ) under Articles 92 and
                                                                        93 of the EEC Treaty is void, the Court of First Instance
aids ( NN 127/92 ) granted by the French Government to
                                                                        ( First Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L.
exporters of French-language books compatible with the
                                                                        Cruz Vilaça , President, B. Vesterdorf, A. Saggio, H.
common market ( OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1993 , p. 6 ), the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities ( First                   Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz                 Gonzalez, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 September
                                                                        1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Vilaça, President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, A.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 September 1995 in which it:                      1 . the application is dismissed;
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision of 18 May 1993                    2 . the parties, including the intervener, are to bear their
                                                                             own costs .
       declaring certain aids (NN 127/92) granted by the
       French Government to exporters of French-language
       books to be compatible with the common market, in so             (') OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
       far as it concerns the subsidy granted exclusively to
       CELF to offset the extra cost involved in handling small
       orders for French-language books placed by booksellers
       established abroad;
2 . dismisses the rest of the application;                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 September 1995
3 . orders the Commission to pay two-thirds of the                      in Case T-548/93 : Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of
       applicant's costs in addition to its own costs;                                  the European Communities ( J )
                                                                         (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 ofthe Treaty — Taking
                                                                         of bets on horse-races — Exclusive rights of a national
4 . orders the applicant to pay one-third of its own                    grouping of undertakings — Agreements and concerted
       costs;                                                           practices — Abuse ofdominantposition -— Article 90 ofthe
                                                                         Treaty — Lack ofCommunity interest — Past infringements
                                                                                of the competition rules)
 5 . orders the French Republic, which has intervened in the                                       ( 95/C 286/30
       proceedings, to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 ( J ) OJ No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                         In Case T-548/93 : Ladbroke Racing Limited, represented by
                                                                        Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, of the Bar of
                                                                         England and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/ 13
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 such imports, declared invalid by the Court of Justice in its
Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich v. Commission               judgment of 22 October 1991 in Case C-16/90 Nölle v.
of the European Communities ( agents : Francisco Enrique             Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen [ 1991 ] ECR 1-5163 — the
Gonzalez Diaz and Richard Lyal ), supported by French                Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, extended
Republic ( agents : Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and         composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President,
Jean-Marc Belorgey ) — application for annulment of the              D. P. M. Barrington, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and
Commission's decision of 29 July 1993 rejecting a                    V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
complaint relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86          18 September 1995 , in which it:
of the EEC Treaty and for immediate re-examination of the
complaint ( IV/33.374 ), the Court of First Instance ( First         1 . dismisses the application;
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz
Vilaça , President, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner, A.                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 18 September 1995 , the operative part
of which is as follows :                                             (') OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
1.   the Commission 's decision contained in the letter dated
     29 July 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint of
     24 November 1989 (IV/33.374) is annulled;
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;                                       of 18 September 1995
                                                                     in Case T-168/94: Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v.
3 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the                Council of the European Union and Commission of the
     proceedings with the exception of those of the                                    European Communities (*)
     intervener, which are to be borne by the intervener.
                                                                     (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability of the
                                                                     Community — Causal Link — Anti-dumping duties —
(') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .                                                   Basic Regulation No 2423/88)
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/32 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Case T-168/94 : Blackspur DIY Ltd, having its registered
                     of 18 September 1995                            office in Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom), Steven Kellar,
                                                                     J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen, Manchester ( United
in Case T-167/94 : Detlef Nölle v. Council of the European           Kingdom ), represented by K. P. E. Lasok, Barrister, of the
          Union and Commission of the European                       Bar of England and Wales, and Charles Khan, Solicitor, with
                        Communities ( ] )                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(Action to establish non-contractual liability —                     Maria Dennewald, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve, against
Admissibility — Basic anti-dumping Regulation (EEC)                  Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jorge Monteiro,
No 2423/88 — Breach — Anti-dumping Regulation (EEC)                  Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ) and Commission of
No 725/89 — Invalidity — Liability by reason oflegislative           the European Communities ( Agent: Eric White ) —
measures — Principle of care — Right to a fair hearing —             application under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
                  Sufficiently serious breach)                       Article 215 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
                          ( 95/C 286/31 )                            Council and the Commission are liable to compensate the
                                                                     applicants for the loss they claim to have suffered as a result
                                                                     of the acts and defaults of those institutions in connection
               (Language of the case: German)                        with the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                     paint- and other brushes originating in the People's
In Case T-167/94 : Detlef Nölle, trading as ' Eugen Nölle', of       Republic of China — the Court of First Instance ( First
Remscheid ( Germany ), represented by Frank Montag and               Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz
Hans-Joachim Prieß, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, against                 Vilaça, President, D. P. M. Barrington, H. Kirschner, A.
Council of the European Union (Agents : Jorge Monteiro,              Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Jürgen Huber, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch) and               given a judgment on 18 September 1995 , in which it:
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Eric
White and Claus-Michael Happe ) — application under                   1 . dismisses the application;
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
EEC Treaty for compensation for the damage allegedly
 suffered by the applicant undertaking by reason of the              2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs jointly and
adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 725/89 of                       severally.
20 March 1989 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 imports of paint, distemper, varnish and similar brushes             (!) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
 originating in the People's Republic of China and
 definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty on


title: Case C-309/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of PPG Industries Fiber Glass B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

text:
C 335/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
2.a) If the first question must be answered in the affirmative          2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned
      and therefore the shipment of waste oil with a PCB                     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly
      content of over 50 ppm must always be regarded as a                    ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of
      shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                    operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework
      raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of               Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,
      Regulation No 259/93 solely on account of the need to                  and if so which one?
      achieve self-sufficiency at national level without showing
      that self-sufficiency at national level is necessary to           3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
      achieve self-sufficiency at Community level?                           an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery
                                                                             within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
2.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such            Directive?
      a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
      principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible       3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
      with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European                operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
      Community?                                                             given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
                                                                             that operation or does neither of the two lists take
                                                                             precedence over the other?
( 1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
( 2) OJ 1987, L 42, p. 43.
                                                                        4.   Must the view of the competent authority of the Member
( 3) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
( 4) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                                   State of dispatch or of the Member State of destination
                                                                             be regarded as decisive as regards whether an operation
                                                                             must be classified as disposal or recovery?
                                                                        5.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a
                                                                             shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection to
                                                                             the shipment be raised pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on
                                                                             the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                             into and out of the European Community solely on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
                                                                             account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency at national
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
                                                                             level without showing that self-sufficiency at national
N.V. Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sond-
                                                                             level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at Community
ershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                             level?
and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
                          en Milieubeheer
                                                                        5.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such
                                                                             a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
                          (Case C-308/00)                                    principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
                                                                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                             Community?
                          (2000/C 335/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) OJ 1975, L 194, p. 39.
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the                   (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Slibverwerking
Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs-
und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-
                                                                        Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case
      ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
                                                                        of PPG Industries Fiber Glass B.V. and Minister van
      to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
      Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-
      use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-
      work Directive?                                                                            (Case C-309/00)
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the                                   (2000/C 335/48)
      above question? For the operation referred to therein to
      exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a
      treatment, can be used several times or can be taken              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      back?                                                             European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/27
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,            1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of metals and
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,                 metal compounds, referred to under R4 of Annex II B
for a preliminary ruling in the case of PPG Industries Fiber                to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the
Glass B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke                   Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-
Ordening en Milieubeheer on the following questions:                        use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-
                                                                            work Directive?
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-
     ganic material, referred to under R5 of Annex II B to
     Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the               1.b) How must R4 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the
     Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-             above question? For the operation referred to therein to
     use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-               exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a
     work Directive?                                                        treatment, can be used several times or can be taken
                                                                            back?
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the
     above question? For the operation referred to therein to          2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned
     exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a             questions that an operation such as the treatment of
     treatment, can be used several times or can be taken                   ferrous chloride solution does not fall within the scope of
     back?                                                                  R4, are the lists of operations given in Annexes II A and
                                                                            II B of the Framework Directive exhaustive or is one of
2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned                    these lists exhaustive, and if so which one?
     questions that an operation such as the filling of clay pits
     does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of
     operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework              3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
     Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,              an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery
     and if so which one?                                                   within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
                                                                            Directive?
3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
     an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery             3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
     within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework                       operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
     Directive?                                                             given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
                                                                            that operation or does neither of the two lists take
3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
                                                                            precedence over the other?
     operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
     given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
     that operation or does neither of the two lists take              4.a) If the shipment of the ferrous chloride solution must be
     precedence over the other?                                             regarded as a shipment of waste for disposal, can
                                                                            an objection to the shipment be raised pursuant to
4.   Must the view of the competent authority of the Member                 Article 4(3)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of
     State of dispatch or of the Member State of destination                1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
     be regarded as decisive as regards whether an operation                shipments of waste within, into and out of the European
     must be classified as disposal or recovery?                            Community solely on account of the need to achieve self-
                                                                            sufficiency at national level without showing that self-
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                                   sufficiency at national level is necessary to achieve self-
                                                                            sufficiency at Community level?
                                                                       4.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such
                                                                            a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
                                                                            principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
                                                                            with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse                       Community?
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case
of Stork Veco B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
           Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
                        (Case C-310/00)
                        (2000/C 335/49)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the                  (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,            (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stork Veco B.V.
and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en
Milieubeheer on the following questions:


title: Case F-35/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/36

         Action brought on 11 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-35/16)
   (2016/C 326/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to classify the applicant in a grade which would, in her view, correspond to her professional experience.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Enrico Palermo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/96)

text:
No C 94/16           lENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Eberhard Eiselt                largesse whereby study missions have been granted to
   against the Commission of the European Communities                colleagues at the Centre.
                         Case T-208/96)
                          ( 97/C 94/36 )                             The applicant makes three arguments on the merits:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     — infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by
                                                                          refusing to facilitate his professional development,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — blatant discrimination against him in contrast with the
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                      treatment accorded to other employees of the Centre,
1996 by Eberhard Eiselt of Ispra (Varese, Italy)                          and to one colleague in particular, and
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with          the
right of audience before the Court of Cassation of         the
Italian Republic, with an address for service               in       — assignment of tasks in the graphics area and under
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10          rue            utilization of the applicant's professional abilities in
Mathias Hardt.                                                           the photographic area in which he is a specialist.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision refusing the applicant leave to
     participate in a vocational training course, on grounds         Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Enrico Palermo
     of infringement of the third paragraph of Article 24 of           against the Commission of the European Communities
     the Staff Regulations and of the general principle of
     non-discrimination,                                                                     ( Case T-212/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/37)
— declare unlawful the applicant's assignment to tasks
     for which he is not suited and for which he was not                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     originally employed, on the ground that the interests
     of the institution are not thereby served,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages of               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
     ECU 10 000 ,                                                    1996 by Enrico Palermo, residing at Rome, a former
                                                                     official of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
                                                                     Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant, who is a B-grade official at the Joint                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Research Centre at Ispra, states that he was originally
employed as a photographic specialist, having previously
worked exclusively in that area . When the applicant                 — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
brought an action before the Court of First Instance, by                 the contested act is based,
reason of circumstances arising in the department to
which he belonged, he was obliged to move to another
department, thereby losing part of his original functions.           — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
That, the applicant maintains, was because the                            1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
Commission preferred to resolve the dispute by means of a                undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
compromise and a promotion. It is in that context that the
refusal to facilitate the applicant's further vocational
training through participation in a specialized                      — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
photographic course at an institute in Zurich, which is the              take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
subject of this action, arose .                                          payments and the recovery subsequently made,
The applicant argues that the refusal is particularly                — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
unjustified because it stands in stark contrast with the                 sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 94/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Fabrizio Gillet
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-2 15/96)
The applicant, a former Commission official, receives an                                       ( 97/C 94/38 )
invalidity pension on ground of serious illness. He is
resident in Italy but has elected to have his benefits paid in
the currency of the country where the institution in                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
question has its seat (third paragraph of Article 45 of
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations ). His pension is thus
paid to him in Belgian francs, subject to the weighting              An action against the Commission of the European
provided for Italy.                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
                                                                      1996 by Fabrizio Gillet, residing at Rome, a former
In February 1996 his pension statement showed a large                official of the Commission of the European Communities,
reduction of the amount by comparison with that of the               in receipt of an old-age pension, represented by Giuseppe
preceding months. That reduction arose from a reduction              Marchesini, advocate with the right of audience before the
in the Italy weighting of 81,7% , with retroactive effect as         Corte di Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an
from 1 July 1995 , pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC,              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 of 18 December 1995                        Ernest Arendt, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt.
adjusting the remuneration and pensions of officials and
other servants of the European Communities and the
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
weightings applied thereto ( ! ).
                                                                     — declare unlawful, first of all, the provisions on which
The applicant claims first of all that Articles 82, 63 , and             the contested act is based,
64 of the Staff Regulations and Article 45 of Annex VIII
thereto have been erroneously and unlawfully applied. In
his view, the present case concerns a pension expressed              — annul the applicant's pension statement for February
and paid in Belgian francs. The rates of exchange referred                1996 in respect of both the recovery of the alleged
to in the second paragraph of Article 63 ( 2 ) were therefore            undue payments and of the weighting as applied,
not applicable. Accordingly, no weighting should have
been applied to the abovementioned rates of exchange .
The weighting for the country of residence of the recipient          — declare the Commission to be under an obligation to
should therefore have been applied to the pension                        take the appropriate measures with regard both to the
expressed in Belgian francs as it was before the variation               payments and the recovery subsequently made,
to which the second paragraph of Article 63 refers was
corrected .
                                                                     — declare unlawful the inclusion, when calculating the
                                                                         amount of the alleged amount owed, of sums relating
                                                                         to the period from 19 to 31 December 1995 and,
Moreover, even if it were shown in the present case that                 accordingly, order the Commission to pay to the
the reduction of the Italian weighting in the period under               applicant, by way of compensation, the nominal
consideration had only been the result of the devaluation                amount of one Belgian franc in lire at the rate in force
of the lira, as the appointing authority asserts, the                    at the time,
applicant maintains that the weighting should then have
been 100% because the currency of remuneration was the
Belgian franc, and therefore conversion of the amount,               — order the Commission to pay interest at 8 % on the
expressed in Belgian francs from the beginning, was                      sums due and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
inconceivable and thus any variation in the value of the
lira was irrelevant .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also points out that there was                         The applicant, a former Commission official, now receives
discrimination between those pensioners who elected                  an old-age pension. He is resident in Italy but has elected
payment of their benefits in the currency of their country           to have his benefits paid in the currency of the country
of origin and those who elected payment in the currency             where the institution in question has its seat (third
of the country where the institution in which they worked            paragraph of Article 45 of Annex VIII to the Staff
has its seat, to the detriment of the latter.                        Regulations ). His pension is thus paid to him in Belgian
                                                                     francs, subject to the weighting provided for Italy.
(') OJ No L 310, 22. 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                     In February 1996 his pension statement showed a large
                                                                     reduction of the amount by comparison with that of the
                                                                     preceding months. That reduction arose from a reduction


title: Case F-96/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank (Civil service — ECB Staff — Pay — Additional increase in salary — Ad personam promotion — Consultation with staff committee to determine the criteria for granting additional increases in salary)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank
   (Case F-96/08) (1)

   (Civil service - ECB Staff - Pay - Additional increase in salary - Ad personam promotion - Consultation with staff committee to determine the criteria for granting additional increases in salary)
   2011/C 13/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Alfrère and N. Urban, Agents and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the ECB Decision not to award the applicant the benefit of an ad personam promotion and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the applicant’s pain and suffering.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision by which the European Central Back refused to grant Mrs Cerafogli an additional increase in salary for 2008;

               2.

               Orders the European Central Bank to pay Mrs Cerafogli the sum of EUR 3 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Order the European Central Bank to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009, p. 75.


title: Case T-852/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/32

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — Access Info Europe v Commission
   (Case T-852/16)
   (2017/C 053/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision C(2016) 6030 of the Commission of 19 September 2016 refusing to grant access to documents requested by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for conducting the proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine international relations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the protection of pending court proceedings initiated in cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 and that access to the said documents would undermine the Commission’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice. It is also argued under this plea that the Commission failed to recognize that access to the requested documents is of overriding public interest and that they should for that reason be disclosed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied Article 4(3), first and second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by deciding that access to the requested documents would seriously undermine the decision-making process and/or by failing to recognize the existence of an overriding public interest, particularly given that the decision-making process in question has been finalised.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in subsidiary order, that the Commission misapplied Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not granting at least partial access to the requested documents which it withheld in their entirety.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-624/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark bice — Ealier national figurative mark 1926 BiCE RISTORANTE — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Bice International v OHIM — Bice (bice)
   (Case T-624/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark bice - Ealier national figurative mark 1926 BiCE RISTORANTE - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 059/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bice International Ltd (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented initially by N. Gibb, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister, and subsequently by D. McFarland)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bice AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Pauli, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2014 (Case R 1249/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bice International Ltd and Bice AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The action is dismissed.

               2)

               Bice International Ltd shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.