title: Case T-374/00: Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Verband der freien Rohrwerke e.V., Eisen- und Metallwerke Ferndorf GmbH and Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/19
Action brought on 12 December 2000 by Carmine                            Pleas in law and main arguments
     Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank
                                                                         The applicant is an employee of the European Central Bank.
                         (Case T-373/00)                                 He seeks annulment of the termination of his employment
                                                                         together with a declaration that the employment relationship
                                                                         continues to exist and has not been terminated. In that
                          (2001/C 61/36)                                 connection, the applicant is contesting a unilateral extension
                                                                         by the ECB of the probationary period, the duration of which
                                                                         was originally agreed as three month. On the basis of his
                                                                         personal rights, he seeks the continuation of his employment
                   (Language of the case: German)                        on the agreed contractual terms. In addition, he seeks an order
                                                                         requiring the ECB to continue to pay the contractually
                                                                         agreed remuneration beyond 31.12.2000, and pleads in that
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                  connection default on the part of the ECB in accepting
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           performance of the contract.
on 12 December 2000 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of
Nidderau (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina
Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
Main (Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Verband der
(1) annul the notice terminating his employment on                       freien Rohrwerke e.V., Eisen- und Metallwerke Ferndorf
      31.12.2000;                                                        GmbH and Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(2) annul the extension of the probationary period;
                                                                                (Case T-374/00)
(3) declare that the employment relationship existing
      between the parties has not been brought to an end by                                       (2001/C 61/37)
      the notice of termination;
(4) declare that the unilateral extension of the probationary                              (Language of the case: German)
      period is ineffective in law;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(5) declare that the employment relationship existing                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      between the parties has continued to exist, without being          European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Verband
      terminated, after 31.12.2000;                                      der freien Rohrwerke e.V., of Düsseldorf (Germany), Eisen- und
                                                                         Metallwerke Ferndorf GmbH, of Kreuztal-Ferndorf (Germany),
(6) order the European Central Bank to continue, beyond                  and Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG, of Siegen (Germany),
      31.12.2000, to provide the applicant with employment               represented by Hans Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne (Ger-
      as a security guard in accordance with the contractual             many).
      conditions of employment;
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
(7) order the European Central Bank to pay to the applicant,
      beyond 31.12.2000, the basic remuneration amounting                —     annul the defendant’s decisions of 5 September and
      to EUR 32 304 p.a., together with the allowances and                     14 September 2000 in merger control case
      other items of remuneration provided for in the con-                     No COMP/M.2045 (ECSC 1336) Salzgitter/Mannes-
      ditions of employment.                                                   mannröhren-Werke;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In a series of ancillary claims for relief, the applicant seeks a
declaration that the employment relationship and the legal
consequences flowing therefrom should continue in existence              Pleas in law and main arguments
at least until the expiry of the notice period applying in respect
of the termination of employment relationships in the ECB
which are of an unlimited duration.                                      According to the particulars provided by it, the first applicant
                                                                         is an association representing the interests of a number of
                                                                         small and medium-sized undertakings producing welded steel
Finally, the applicant claims that the Court should: order the           pipes from hot-rolled wide strips or quarto plates. The other
European Central Bank to pay the costs.                                  applicants are members of the first applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.2.2001
By the contested decisions, the Commission declared a pro-               —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
posed concentration between Salzgitter AG and Mannes-                          decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
mannröhren-Werke AG to be compatible with the common                           compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and author-                     the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
ised the proposed concentration pursuant to Article 66(2) CS.                  information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
                                                                               applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                               worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
The applicants are contesting the decisions on the basis of the                future career;
fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and the second paragraph
of Article 33 CS. They consider that the contested measures              —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
are of direct and individual concern to them.                                  decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                               compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                               applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
The applicants complain, in their criticism of the Commission,                 candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
that the contested decisions omit any examination of the facts                 lost an opportunity of promotion;
and law with regard to individual product markets which are
directly affected by the concentration, despite the fact that            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
the proposed concentration radically alters the structural
conditions of competition on those markets. In addition, the
Commission has unlawfully omitted to examine from a factual              Pleas in law and main arguments
and legal standpoint the effects of the concentration which
result from the fact that the concentration has led to inter-
linking between Salzgitter AG and third parties. That inter-             The applicant in the present case contests the refusal by the
linking is liable significantly to prejudice the effectiveness of        appointing authority to appoint him to the post of head of the
competition on the markets concerned.                                    unit responsible for ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
                                                                         transport’.
                                                                         In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
                                                                         in law:
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                               the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-                             rules governing the promotion procedure and of the
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-                           principle of equal treatment;
                                ties
                                                                         —     a manifest error of assessment in the present case;
                         (Case T-376/00)                                 —     misuse of power and infringement of Article 7 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations.
                          (2001/C 61/38)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            Company against the Council of the European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon                                      (Case T-382/00)
and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/39)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
      person to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles and               An action against the Council of the European Union was
      other means of transport’, corresponding to a grade                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;                                        Communities on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company,
                                                                         a company established under the laws of Delaware (USA),
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application          represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Wilko van Weert, of
      of the applicant for the post in question;                         Stanbrook & Hooper, Brussels.


title: Case C-509/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH (Intellectual and industrial property — Community plant variety rights — Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — ‘Farmer’s privilege’ — Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ — Compensation for damage suffered — Infringement)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-509/10) (1)

   (Intellectual and industrial property - Community plant variety rights - Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - ‘Farmer’s privilege’ - Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ - Compensation for damage suffered - Infringement)
   2012/C 287/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Josef Geistbeck, Thomas Geistbeck

      Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 14(3) and Article 94(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) and of Articles 5 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14) — Community plant variety rights — Infringement — Obligation to pay the holder of such rights reasonable compensation and to compensate him for damage — Criteria for determining the damage and reasonable compensation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In order to determine the ‘reasonable compensation’ payable, under Article 94(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, by a farmer who has used the propagating material of a protected variety obtained through planting and has not fulfilled his obligations under Article 14(3) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998, it is appropriate to base the calculation on the amount of the fee payable for the licensed production of propagating material of protected varieties of the plant species concerned in the same area.

               2.

               The payment of compensation for costs incurred for monitoring compliance with the rights of the plant variety holder cannot enter into the calculation of the ‘reasonable compensation’ provided for under Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2100/94.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-602/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — First indent of Article 2(7)(c) — Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 — Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China — Market economy treatment — Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values — State subsidy for the steel sector in general — Effect)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)
   (Case C-602/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - First indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China - Market economy treatment - Costs of major inputs substantially reflecting market values - State subsidy for the steel sector in general - Effect))
   2014/C 409/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd, Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISLB (EIFI) in the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-108/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania): RI.SAN Srl v Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro SpA, formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA (Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Organisation of urban waste collection service)

text:
4.12.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 352/5
1. Where a Member State has not transposed Council Directive                17 December 1997 in Case T-152/95 Petrides v Commission
     85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health                [1997] ECR II-2427, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
     inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, as             the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
     amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                  European Communities (Agent: Gérard Berscheid) — the Court
     1993, into national law within the period prescribed, individuals      (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
     cannot oppose the collection of fees higher than the levers of the     the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and
     standard amounts fixed in point 1 of Chapter I of the Annex to         C. Gulmann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
     the Directive, where those fees do not exceed the actual costs.        eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September
                                                                            1999, in which it:
2. A Member State may exercise the option available under
     point 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex to Directive 85/73, as            1. Dismisses the appeal;
     amended by Directive 93/118, of collecting a special fee
                                                                            2. Orders Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. to pay the costs.
     exceeding the level of the standard fees fixed in point 1 of
     Chapter I, provided only that the special fee does not exceed the
     actual costs incurred, no further conditions being imposed.            (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
3. In cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities
     the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls
     of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by
     Directive 93/118, authorises it to collect an amount higher than
     Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997. OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                                                                            in Case C-108/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania):
                                                                            RI.SAN Srl v Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro SpA,
                                                                                formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA (1)
                                                                            (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Organisation of urban waste collection service)
                           (Third Chamber)                                                            (1999/C 352/10)
                        of 9 September 1999                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Action for compensation — Common organis-                         In Case C-108/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ation of the market in raw tobacco — Commission decisions                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
rejecting bids in tendering procedures in respect of tobacco                Amministrativo Regionale della Campania, Italy, for a prelimi-
held by intervention agencies — Inadequate statement of                     nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
reasons, principles of proportionality, equal treatment and                 between RI.SAN Srl and Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro
                      the right to a fair hearing)                          SpA, formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Articles 55 and 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                            Articles 45 EC and 86(2) EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                            (1999/C 352/09)                                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and L. Se-
                                                                            vón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
                      (Language of the case: French)                        Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 EC) does not apply in a
                     in the European Court Reports)                         situation such as that in the main proceedings in which all the facts
                                                                            are confined to within a single Member State and which does not
                                                                            therefore have any connecting link with one of the situations envisaged
In Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc., established              by Community law in the area of the freedom of movement for
in Kavala (Greece), represented by Nikolaos Vassilakakis,                   persons and freedom to provide services.
Evangelos Vassilakakis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, and Evangelia
Pallioudi, of the Kavala Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue                          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
Ermesinde — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of


title: Case C-572/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/59

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-572/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/128
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Case T-139/02: Action brought on 29 April 2002 by the public limited company Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis and the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/40                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
Communities on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink Inter-                 Action brought on 29 April 2002 by the public limited
national Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Paul Waer of Vermulst              company Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis
Waer & Verhaeghe, Brussels (Belgium).                                   N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes
                                                                        Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, the Panellinia Enosi
                                                                        Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis and the
                                                                        Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epangelmatikis Ekpai-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             defsis kai Katartisis against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) no 215/2002
      of 28 January 2002 in so far as it imposes an anti-                                        (Case T-139/02)
      dumping duty on Nanjing Metalink International Co.
      Ltd.;
                                                                                (2002/C 169/71)
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Idiotiko Institou-
The applicant is a company in the People’s Republic of China            to Epangelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnoris-
producing ferro molybdenum. In the contested Decision (1),              menes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, a public
the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports           limited company whose seat is in Athens, the Panellinia Enosi
of ferro molybdenum originating from China.                             Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis, whose seat
                                                                        is in Athens, and the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis
                                                                        Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis, whose seat is in
The applicant states that it was granted Market Economy                 Athens, represented by Th. Antoniou and Kh. Tsiliotis, of the
Treatment in the Regulation imposing a provisional duty (2),            Athens Bar.
which resulted in a reduced anti-dumping duty for the
applicant. This treatment was revoked in the contested
Decision. The applicant claims that by revoking the Market              The applicants claim that the Court should:
Economy Treatment which was granted on the basis of the
same investigation, the Council breached Article 2(7) (c) of            —     allow the application;
Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96 (3). According to the
applicant, the Council did not follow the procedures                    —     annul the contested decision of 27 February 2002
prescribed in Regulation 384/96 for the revocation of                         adopted by the Directorate-General for Employment and
Market Economy Treatment. Instead, the initial determination                  Social Affairs of the Commission with the objective of
made should have remained in force until a new investigation                  invalidating the unlawful refusal of the Commission —
was conducted.                                                                for the reasons set out in the grounds of the application —
                                                                              to remove the unlawful distinction between private and
                                                                              public vocational training bodies so far as concerns the
Secondly, the applicant submits that by revoking the grant of                 financing exclusively of the latter by the third Community
Market Economy Treatment, the Council exceeded its powers                     support framework and, in particular, by the operational
under Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96. According to the                     programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training II’.
applicant, the Council does not have the power to revoke a
grant of Market Economy Treatment without instituting a
fresh investigation.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2002 of 28 January 2002
    imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ferro         —     Infringement of provisions of Council Regulation
    molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ              No 1260/1999.
    L 35, 6.2.2002, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1612/2001 of 3 August 2001            —     Infringement of provisions of primary law.
    imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro
    molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ
    L 214, 8.8.2001, p. 3).                                             —     Infringement of the principle of equality laid down by
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                  Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty.
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members
    of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).                —     Infringement of the principle of subsididarity.


title: Case T-83/07: Action brought on 14 March 2007 — Kliq Reïntegratie (in liquidation) v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/25

         Action brought on 14 March 2007 — Kliq Reïntegratie (in liquidation) v Commission
   (Case T-83/07)
   (2007/C 117/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Jean Leon Marcel Groenewegen, acting in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation proceedings relating to Kliq Reïntegratie B.V., a private company with limited liability (Amersfoort, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 2006 in Case C 30/2005;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision 2006/939/EC of 19 July 2006 on the aid measure notified by the Netherlands for KG Holding NV (1).
   The aid measure mentioned related to restructuring aid which the Netherlands wished to grant to KG Holding NV by converting a previously approved rescue loan and the interest payable thereon into equity capital. In the contested decision, the Commission declares the aid measure, in the form of restructuring aid, to be incompatible with the common market.
   The Commission also rules that the Netherlands must recover from KG Holding NV and its subsidiary Kliq BV that portion of the aid which KG Holding NV transferred to Kliq BV as a rescue loan and which was converted into equity capital, and that the Netherlands must register with the receiver their claim against KG Holding NV and/or Kliq Reïntegratie as a creditor in the liquidation proceedings.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission committed errors of appraisal, as a result of which the contested decision is inadequately reasoned and at variance with Article 87(1) EC. The applicant claims in particular that the Commission erred in deciding that the Netherlands had to register with the receiver their claim in the amount of EUR 35.75 million against KG Holding and Kliq Reïntegratie as a creditor in the liquidation proceedings.
   The applicant submits in this regard that the Netherlands State has no claim against Kliq Reïntegratie. Furthermore, Kliq Reïntegratie is not an undertaking which was a recipient of State aid and is also not described as such by the Commission in the contested decision. There is therefore, it is contended, no basis for any recovery by the State against Kliq Reïntegratie or for the application to Kliq Reïntegratie of, in particular, point 23(d) of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (2).
   It is also, the applicant contends, unclear whether the Commission concluded in the contested decision, in regard to Kliq Reïntegratie, that there was unlawful aid in the amount of EUR 35.75 million that had to be claimed back by the Netherlands or whether what was in issue was rescue aid which the Commission approved in the contested decision on the basis of point 23(d) of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (3). Further, it is alleged that the Commission, in its decision of 16 December 2003 (4), had agreed that this amount was to be used to finance the redundancies of staff members and the redemption of the redundant contracts of Kliq Reïntegratie, and that Kliq Reïntegratie was thereafter to be placed in liquidation.
   The applicant submits, second, that the Commission wrongly failed to establish that the alleged aid might be liable to have an adverse effect on competition and trade between Member States; at any rate, the Commission's findings in this regard are inadequately reasoned.
   Third, it is submitted that the Commission erred in finding that the alleged aid of EUR 35.75 million had to be recovered from KG Holding and/or Kliq Reïntegratie by registering those claims in the liquidation proceedings. By reason of the liquidation of KG Holding, Kliq Reïntegratie and Kliq BV, recovery of the amounts of alleged aid will, it is argued, be definitively impossible and would in any event be pointless in the sense that recovery through registration in the liquidation proceedings relating to those companies is unnecessary and, indeed, entirely superfluous for the purpose of putting an end to the distortion of competition.
   Fourth, it is argued that the Commission erred in its statements and findings in law with regard to a current-account credit facility of EUR 17 million which had already been provided by the Netherlands to KG Holding when the latter was established and was in accordance with the rules on State aid, and which did not form part of the measure under examination in the contested decision.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 366, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2.

      (3)  OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2.

      (4)  Aid measure N 510/2003 — Rescue aid for Kliq Holding NV (OJ 2004 C 33, p. 8).


title: Case C-324/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
   (Case C-324/17)
   (2017/C 256/14)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

      Party to the main proceedings

   Ivan Gavanozov

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are national legislation and case-law consistent with Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, in so far as they preclude a challenge, either directly as an appeal against a court decision or indirectly by means of a separate claim for damages, to the substantive grounds of a court decision issuing a European investigation order for a search on residential and business premises and the seizure of specific items, and allowing examination of a witness?

               2.

               Does Article 14(2) of the directive grant, in an immediate and direct manner, to a concerned party the right to challenge a court decision issuing a European investigation order, even where such a procedural step is not provided for by national law?

               3.

               Is the person against whom a criminal charge was brought, in the light of Article 14(2) in connection with Article 6(1)(a) and Article 1(4) of the directive, a concerned party, within the meaning of Article 14(4), if the measures for collection of evidence are directed at third party?

               4.

               Is the person who occupies the property in which the search and seizure was carried out or the person who is to be examined as a witness a concerned party within the meaning of Article 14(4) in connection with Article 14(2) of the directive?

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1.


title: Case T-237/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — CityLine Hungary v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — CityLine Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-237/07) (1)

   (2008/C 223/104)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

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

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 30 April 2002 In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01: Government of Gibraltar v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Tax legislation — Existing aid or new aid — Initiation of the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC)

text:
C 169/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
1.    Dismisses the application;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                                30 April 2002
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.                                                   In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01: Government of
                                                                            Gibraltar v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Tax legislation — Existing aid or new aid —
                                                                           Initiation of the formal investigation procedure provided for
                                                                                in Article 88(2) EC)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         (2002/C 169/53)
                            3 May 2002                                                        (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-177/01: Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, Government of
(Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 — Recovery of                    Gibraltar, represented by A. Sutton and M. Llamas, Barristers,
the stock of hake — Fishing company — Action for                           and W. Schuster, lawyer, with an address for service in
annulment — Person individually concerned — Admissi-                       Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                               bility)                                     (Agent: V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                           Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta): Application for annulment
                                                                           of decisions SG(2001) D/289755 and SG(2001) D/289757 of
                          (2002/C 169/52)                                  the Commission of 11 July 2001 initiating the procedure
                                                                           provided for by Article 88(2) EC in respect of the Gibraltarian
                    (Language of the case: French)                         legislation on exempt companies and qualifying companies,
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Com-
                                                                           position), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                           J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA, established at Lorient             30 April 2002, in which it:
(France), represented by A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente
and A. Agustinoy Guilayn, lawyers, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and A. Bordes):                  1.    In Case T-195/01:
Application for annulment of Articles 3(d) and 5 of Com-
mission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001
establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in                   (a)  Annuls decision SG (2001) D/289755 of the Com-
ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a,                      mission of 11 July 2001 initiating the procedure laid
b, d, e and associated conditions for the control of activities of                    down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the Gibraltar
fishing vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4), the Court of First                             exempt companies legislation;
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood                (b) Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                          Government of Gibraltar and to bear its own costs, with
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2002, in which it:                           the exception of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
                                                                                in Case T-195/01 R, which shall be paid in their entirety
                                                                                by the Government of Gibraltar;
1.    Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;
                                                                                (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;
2.    Orders that the proceedings be continued in relation to the
      substance;
                                                                           2.    In Case T-207/01:
3.    Reserves the costs.
                                                                                (a)  Dismisses the application;
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                      (b) Orders the Government of Gibraltar to pay the costs
                                                                                incurred by the Commission and to bear its own costs,
                                                                                including those incurred in the interlocutory proceedings
                                                                                in Case T-207/01 R;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/31
      (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 16 April 2002
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments
                                                                               N.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/55)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          of 9 April 2002
                                                                           In Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments N.V.
in Case T-210/93: H. Hepp v Council of the European                        (formerly Jubertrade N.V.), established in Antwerp (Belgium),
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      represented by Y. van Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk                     the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and J. Stuyck)
— Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion                    — application for the annulment of Commission Decision
            undertakings — No need to adjudicate)                          C(1999)4419 final (REC 4/99) of 14 December 1999 finding
                                                                           that it was appropriate, first, to make post clearance recovery
                                                                           and, secondly, to refuse to refund duties in respect of the
                          (2002/C 169/54)                                  importation of television sets from Turkey — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
                                                                           President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                   (Language of the case: German)                          made an order on 16 April 2002, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
In Case T-210/93: H. Hepp, residing in Villmar-Weyer (Germ-
any), represented by H. Heep, lawyer, against Council of the               2.    The Commission shall pay all the costs.
European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß,
M. Niejahr, H.-J. Rabe and Núñez-Müller) — application for               (1) OJ 149 C 27.5.00.
compensation pursuant to Articles 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 235
EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of having been prevented
from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 93, p. 13), supplemented by Commission Regu-                                             of 16 April 2002
lation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132,
p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                      in Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum
Extended Composition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos,                           B.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
President V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 (Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.                                           (2002/C 169/56)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ 270 C 19.10.92.                                                     In Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum B.V.,
                                                                           represented by R.G. Baron Snouckaert van Schauburg, lawyer,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — application


title: Case C-379/10: Action brought on 29 July 2010 — Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/6

         Action brought on 29 July 2010 — Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-379/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignatoro and M. Nolin, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by excluding any liability on the part of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of European Union law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance where such an infringement results from interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court and limiting such liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct, pursuant to Article 2(1) and (2) of Law No 117 of 13 April 1988, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations in connection with the general principle of the liability of Member States, laid down by the Court in its case-law, for breach of European Union law by one of its courts adjudicating at last instance, which is a principle established by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Law No 117 of 13 April 1988 on compensation for damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges excludes any liability on the part of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of European Union law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance where such an infringement results from interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court. Moreover, that law restricts liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct.
   In its judgment in Case C-173/03 Traghtetti del Mediterraneo v Italy, (1) the Court ruled as follows:

      ‘Community law precludes national legislation which excludes State liability, in a general manner, for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance by reason of the fact that the infringement in question results from an interpretation of provisions of law or an assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court.
      Community law also precludes national legislation which limits such liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, if such a limitation were to lead to exclusion of the liability of the Member State concerned in other cases where a manifest infringement of the applicable law was committed, as set out in paragraphs 53 to 56 of [Case C-224/01 Köbler v Austria]’. (2)

   The Court therefore found that Law No 117 is incompatible with its case-law. That case-law remains in force and is applied. The case-law of the Court has therefore been infringed.

      (1)  (2006) ECR I-5177.

      (2)  [2003] ECR I-10239.


title: Case C-311/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2012 — Heinz Kassner v Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2012 — Heinz Kassner v Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co
   (Case C-311/12)
   2012/C 287/36
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Nienburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heinz Kassner

      Defendant: Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in certain sectors, the length of the period of annual leave of at least four weeks may be reduced by way of collective agreement?

               2.

               Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which it may be provided in collective agreements that reductions in earnings occurring in the period of calculation as a result of short-time work, loss of working hours or non-culpable absence from work affect the calculation of the payment for annual leave with the result that the worker does not receive any payment for annual leave for the duration of the period of annual leave of at least four weeks, or does not receive any allowance in lieu of leave after the employment relationship has ended?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which it may be provided in collective agreements that reductions in earnings occurring in the period of calculation as a result of short-time work, loss of working hours or non-culpable absence from work affect the calculation of the payment for annual leave with the result that the worker receives a lower payment for annual leave for the duration of the period of annual leave of at least four weeks, or receives a lower allowance in lieu of leave after the employment relationship has ended, than he would receive if the calculation of the payment for annual leave were based on the average earnings which the worker would have received in the period of calculation without such reductions in earnings? If so, what is the maximum percentage, with reference to the worker’s full average earnings, that a collectively agreed reduction, permitted by national legislation, of the payment for annual leave as a result of short-time work, loss of working hours or non-culpable absence from work may have in the period of calculation in order for the interpretation of that national legislation to be regarded as in conformity with EU law?

               4.

               Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a national collective agreement under which a leave entitlement does not accrue for periods of the year in which a worker who is unfit for work due to sickness has not received remuneration, sick pay or injury benefit, in so far as, consequently, the worker has an entitlement to less than four weeks’ annual leave?

               5.

               Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a national collective agreement under which a paid annual leave entitlement — or after the employment relationship has ended an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave — does not accrue in years in which, as a result of loss of working hours or non-culpable absence from work, in particular due to sickness, no gross wage is earned?

               6.

               Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to be interpreted as precluding a provision in a national collective agreement under which entitlements to leave and to an allowance in lieu of leave expire at the end of the calendar year following the year in which the leave entitlements accrued, thereby limiting the possibility for a worker who is unfit for work for several consecutive reference periods to accumulate entitlements to paid annual leave? If so, is EU law applied better and more effectively in national law if such a collectively agreed rule is disapplied entirely, or if the rule is developed in conformity with EU law in such a way that, rather than the annual period, a certain longer period applies?

               7.

               If one or more of Questions 1 to 5 are answered in the affirmative: Do the general principle of legal certainty laid down by EU law and the principle of non-retroactivity allow the possibility of relying on the Court’s interpretation of Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time in the preliminary ruling to be given in the present case to be limited in time, with effect for all parties, because the highest national courts have previously ruled that the relevant national legislation and collectively agreed rules are not amenable to an interpretation in conformity with EU law? If the Court answers this question in the negative: Is it compatible with EU law if, on the basis of national law, the national courts grant protection of legitimate expectations to employers, who have relied on the continued application of the case-law developed by the highest national courts, or is the grant of protection of legitimate expectations reserved for the Court of Justice of the European Union?

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 1997 in Case C-237/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Mons): criminal proceedings against Eddy Amelynck and Others (Free movement of goods - Community transit - Proof of the Community status of goods)

text:
1 . 11 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331 /9
     of assessment, authorizes Member States to regard a               Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     credit note issued by the recipient of the goods or               judgment on 25 September 1997, in which it has ruled:
     services as a 'document serving as an invoice', where it
     includes the information prescribed for invoices by
     that directive, it is drawn up with the agreement of the          1 . The rule laid down in Council Regulation (EEC)
     taxable person who supplies the goods or services, and                   No 222H7 of 13 December 1976 on Community
     the latter is able to contest the amount of value added                  transit and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 223177
     tax mentioned.                                                           of 22 December 1976 on provisions for the
                                                                              implementation of the Community transit procedure
                                                                              and for certain simplifications of that procedure to the
2 . A taxable person who has not contested the mention,                       effect that, save as otherwise provided, proof of the
     in a credit note serving as an invoice, of an amount of                  Community status of goods may be provided only by
     value added tax greater than that owed by reason of                      means of transit documents T2 or T2 L is consistent
     taxable transactions may be regarded as the person                       with Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty.
     who has mentioned that amount, and is consequently
     liable to pay the amount shown, within the meaning
     of Article 21 (1 ) (c) of the Sixth Directive.                    2 . Article 37 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 222177 does
                                                                              not allow proof of the Community status of goods to
                                                                              be provided by means of the findings of the competent
(') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .                                                 authorities of a Member State made when inspections
(2) OJL 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                          are carried out under the Community transit
                                                                             procedure.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ C269, 14 . 9 . 1996 . .
                                                                       (2 ) OJL 38 , 9.2 . 1977, p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 3 ) OJL 38 , 9.2 . 1977, p . 20 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fourth Chamber)
                       of 25 September 1997
in Case C-237/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
the Cour d'Appel, Mons ): criminal proceedings against                                            (First Chamber)
                Eddy Amelynck and Others ( l )
                                                                                of 16 September 1997
(Free movement of goods — Community transit — Proof
              of the Community status of goods)                        in Case C-59/96 P: Casper Koelman v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, supported by Buma, an
                           ( 97/C 331 /15 )                            association governed by Dutch law, and the French
                                                                                Republic (J )
                                                                       (Appeal — Regulation No 17 — Rejection of a complaint
                 (Language of the case: French)                                              — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (:97/C 331 / 16
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-237/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel ( Court of                                  published in the European Court Reports)
Appeal ), Mons (Belgium ), for a preliminary ruling in the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Eddy Amelynck and Others and Transports Amelynck                       In Case C-59/96 P, Casper Koelman (represented by:
SPRL, party liable at civil law — on the interpretation                R. V. H. Jonker) — appeal against the judgment of the
and validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 222/77                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities
of 13 December 1976 on Community transit (2 )                          ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ) in Case T-575/
and Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 233/77 of                          93 Koelman v. Commission [ 1996] ECR II- 1 , seeking to
22 December 1976 on provisions for the implementation                  have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
of the Community transit procedure and for certain                     proceedings being the Commission of the European
simplifications of that procedure (3 ) — the Court ( Fourth            Communities (Agent: B. J. Drijber ), supported by Buma,
Chamber), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the                  an association governed by Dutch law, established at
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.                     Amstelveen (Netherlands), represented by C. van Rij and
Kapteyn, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate General; L.                      E. A. P. Engels, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for


title: Case T-471/04: Action brought on 6 December 2004 by Mr Georgios Karatzoglou against the European Agency for Reconstruction

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/28

         Action brought on 6 December 2004 by Mr Georgios Karatzoglou against the European Agency for Reconstruction
   (Case T-471/04)
   (2005/C 57/48)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the European Agency for Reconstruction was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 December 2004 by Mr Georgios Karatzoglou, Ioannina, Greece, represented by S. A. Pappas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               cancel the implicit rejection of the complaint of the applicant and, subsequently, the termination of his contract;

               —

               order the Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was recruited as a temporary agent by the defendant, in accordance with Article 2(a) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities. On 7 May 2003, his contract was renewed for an indefinite period. The applicant contests the subsequent termination of his contract in application of Article 47(2) of the Conditions of employment.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits a lack of reasoning of the termination of the contract. According to the applicant, the defendant had bound itself not to terminate the contract unless there would be a need for a reduction or winding-up of its operations. The applicant claims that this is not the case and is not even invoked. The applicant furthermore submits a breach of his legitimate expectations, an infringement of Article 47 of the Conditions of employment and a misuse of powers. Finally, the applicant submits a violation of the principle of good administration since, according to the applicant, the supposed need to reduce the staff was caused by unreasonable management.


title: Case T-110/17: Action brought on 18 February 2017 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/43

         Action brought on 18 February 2017 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission
   (Case T-110/17)
   (2017/C 121/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (JO 2016, L 333, p. 4), as far as the applicant is concerned; and

               —

               order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one sole ground.
   According to the applicant, the Commission breached Article 8(1), (9) and (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1), and Article 13(1), (9) and (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (2), when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to all duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation.
   The applicant bases this plea on a plea of illegality of Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 (3), and Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 (4), which give to the Commission the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid.

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

      (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 55).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013, L 325, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013, L 325, p. 66).


title: Case T-10/99: Action brought on 16 January 1999 by Miguel Vicente Nuñez against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 121/16              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 16 January 1999 by Miguel Vicente                      In stating the reasons on which his claim for damages is based,
Nuñez against the Commission of the European Com-                       the applicant maintains that, according to settled case-law,
                            munities                                     delay in the drawing-up of a staff report by the administration
                                                                         which is not attributable to the official concerned constitutes
                         (Case T-10/99)                                  an administrative fault liable to cause the person concerned to
                                                                         suffer non-material damage, by reason of the state of uncer-
                                                                         tainty and worry in which he finds himself as a result of the
                        (1999/C 121/37)
                                                                         irregularity or incompleteness of his personal life.
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 January 1999 by Miguel Vicente Nuñez,
residing at Krainem (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert                Action brought on 27 January 1999 by ABB Asea Brown
Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service at the              Boveri Ltd against the Commission of the European
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.                                                 Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (Case T-31/99)
— annul the contested decisions,
                                                                                (1999/C 121/38)
— order the defendant to pay him BEF 50 000 by way of
    compensation for the material damage suffered by him, as
    provisionally quantified,                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— order the defendant to pay him BEF 50 000 by way of                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    him,                                                                 European Communities on 27 January 1999 by ABB Asea
                                                                         Brown Boveri Ltd, Zürich (Switzerland), represented by Dr
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  Andreas Weitbrecht and Dr Sven B. Völcker, of the Bar of
                                                                         Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch, Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Goethe.
The name of the applicant, a grade A 6 official, did not appear
on the list of officials considered to be most deserving of              The applicant claims that the Court should:
promotion to grade A 5, or on the list of officials promoted to
grade A 5 in the 1998 procedure for promotion from one                   — annul Article 3 of the Commission’s Decision of 21 Octo-
career bracket to the next.                                                  ber 1998 (Case IV/35.691/E-4-3: pre-insulated pipes) in so
                                                                             far as it relates to the applicant,
In support of his application, he pleads:                                — substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, and
— the absence, alternatively irregularity, of any consideration          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,
    of the comparative merits and staff reports of the applicant             including those of the applicant.
    in relation to those of the other persons eligible for
    promotion, arising from the fact that his personnel file and
    his latest staff report were not available at the time               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    when the contested decisions were adopted, as well as
    infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         The applicant pleads that the Commission’s decision is based
— the absence, alternatively inadequacy, of any statement                on the following errors:
    of reasons for the contested decisions, together with
    infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the            1. I n f r i n g e m e n t o f e s s e n t i a l p r o c e d u r a l
    Staff Regulations,                                                       r e q u i r e m e n t s : The Commission, in conducting the
                                                                             procedure leading up to the Decision, infringed essential
— infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations,                    procedural requirements. In particular:
    inasmuch as the contested decisions were adopted not on
    the basis of the respective merits of those eligible for                   — the Commission denied the applicant the right to be
    promotion but on the basis of a rule whereby an official                        heard,
    whose name is put forward for promotion for the second
    time by his Directorate must be proposed for promotion                     — the Commission relied on facts that had not been
    by his Directorate-general.                                                     established,


title: Case T-437/09: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2011 — Oyster Cosmetics v OHIM — Kadabell (Oyster cosmetics) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Oyster cosmetics — Earlier Community figurative mark Kadus oystra AUTO STOP PROTECTION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2011 — Oyster Cosmetics v OHIM — Kadabell (Oyster cosmetics)
   (Case T-437/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Oyster cosmetics - Earlier Community figurative mark Kadus oystra AUTO STOP PROTECTION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 80/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oyster Cosmetics SpA (Castiglione delle Stiviere, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1367/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG and Oyster Cosmetics SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Oyster Cosmetics SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-64/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ , other party: M.J. Boedeker

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’, other party: M.J. Boedeker
   (Case C-64/12)
   2012/C 126/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’

      Defendant: M.J. Boedeker

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 6(2) (1) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations be interpreted in such a way that, if an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract not only habitually but also for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the law of that country should be applied in all cases, even if all other circumstances point to a close connection between the employment contract and another country?

               2.

               Does an affirmative answer to Question 1 require that the employer and the employee, when concluding the contract of employment, or at least at the commencement of the work, intended, or at least were aware of the fact, that the work would be carried out over a long period and without interruption in the same country?

      (1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).


title: Case T-12/09: Action brought on 13 January 2009 — Gruber v OHIM (Run the globe)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/46

         Action brought on 13 January 2009 — Gruber v OHIM (Run the globe)
   (Case T-12/09)
   (2009/C 69/102)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Alexander Gruber (Ulm, Germany) (represented by T. Kienle and M. Krinke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2008 (Case R 1779/2007-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Run the globe’ for services in Class 41 — Application No 5 154 521

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), as the registered mark has the necessary distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-102/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Camar Srl v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (International agreements — Yaoundé Convention — Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention — Standstill clause — Internal taxation — Bananas)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Camar Srl v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
      (Case C-102/09) (1)

      (International agreements - Yaoundé Convention - Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention - Standstill clause - Internal taxation - Bananas)
      (2010/C 161/16)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Firenze

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Camar Srl

         Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Firenze — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Compatibility with Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention and with the import system governed by the ACP-EEC Lomé Convention of a national law imposing a consumption tax on bananas originating in Somalia

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 14 of the Convention of Association between the European Economic Community and the African States and Madagascar associated with the Community, signed at Yaoundé on 20 July 1963, did not preclude a tax on bananas originating in Somalia such as that introduced by Law No 986/1964 of 9 October 1964.

                  2.

                  The national court is not required to examine the specific effects of increases of a tax on imports of bananas originating in Somalia, such as the tax introduced by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, by comparison with the situation before 1 April 1976, in order to determine whether such increases are compatible with the standstill clause in Article 1 of Protocol No 5 on bananas annexed to the Fourth Lomé Convention. However, increases of such a tax which simply adjust it to take account of inflation are not incompatible with that clause.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-105/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Essent NV and Essent Nederland BV

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Essent NV and Essent Nederland BV
   (Case C-105/12)
   2012/C 151/26
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden
   Respondents:

               Essent NV

               Essent Nederland BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 345 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’ also include the rule in respect of the absolute ban on privatisation which is at issue in the present case, as set out in the Besluit aandelen netbeheerders (Decree on shares in system operators), in conjunction with Article 93 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity) and Article 85 of the Gaswet (Law on gas), under which shares in a system operator can be transferred only within the circle of public authorities?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does this then have the effect that the rules relating to the free movement of capital are not applicable to the group ban and to the ban on secondary activities, or at least that a review of the group ban and of the ban on secondary activities in the light of the rules relating to the free movement of capital is not required?

               3.

               Are the objectives which also form the basis of the Won (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (Law on independent network operation), that is to say, to achieve transparency in the energy market and to prevent distortions of competition by opposing cross-subsidisation in the broad sense (including strategic information exchange), purely economic interests, or can they also be regarded as interests of a non-economic nature, in the sense that in certain circumstances, as compelling reasons in the general interest, they may constitute a justification for a restriction of the free movement of capital?


title: Case C-495/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 December 2009 — Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 December 2009 — Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-495/09)
   2010/C 37/26
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nokia Corporation

      Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Question referred

   Are non-Community goods bearing a Community trade mark which are subject to customs supervision in a Member State and in transit from a non-Member State to another non-Member State capable of constituting ‘counterfeit goods’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation 1383/2003/EC (1) if there is no evidence to suggest that those goods will be put ton the market in the EC, either in conformity with a customs procedure or by means of an illicit diversion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights
   OJ L 196, p. 7


title: Case T-241/03 REV: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Proceedings — Review — Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court — New fact — Absence — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/23

      Order of the General Court of 11 September 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case T-241/03 REV) (1)

      (Proceedings - Review - Consequences of a later judgment of the General Court - New fact - Absence - Inadmissibility)
      (2012/C 331/43)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application for revision of the Order of the General Court of 17 May 2006 in Case T-241/03 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC I-A-2-111 and II-A-2-517.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Case C-7/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 December 2001 in the case of Holin Groep B.V. c.s. against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/21
8.   Where the numbers of budgetary and established posts                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
     remain unchanged, can additional personnel costs                     Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 December
     incurred in the recruitment of additional persons by an              2001 in the case of Holin Groep B.V. c.s. against Staatsse-
     expansion of part-time employment, in contrast to the                                      cretaris van Financiën
     hitherto predominant full-time employment, justify the
     necessity of imposing these costs on part-time employees
     by way of a disproportionate reduction in their rate of
     pension, as occurred under the second and third clauses                                         (Case C-7/02)
     of the first sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the BeamtenVG
     in the version thereof applicable until 31 December
     1991?
                                                                                (2002/C 109/34)
9.   Is it reasonable for such costs to be taken into account as
     a matter of necessity (Q. 8) if the burden of additional
     staff-administration costs is imposed solely on earlier
     part-time employees, hence predominantly women, even                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     though the expansion of part-time employment oppor-                  European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
     tunities at the time of the legislative amendment in that            der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
     regard as a matter of priority pursued the objective of              21 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 Janu-
     reducing general unemployment by the partial absorption              ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Holin Groep
     of surplus male and female applicants to the public                  B.V. c.s. against Staatssecretaris van Financiën (State Secretary
     service?                                                             for Finance) on the following question:
                                                                          1.    Do Articles 5(7)(a) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1). or the
10. Does the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC                          European law principles of the protection of legitimate
     Treaty as part of the Treaty on European Union of 1992                     expectations and of legal certainty preclude — in a case
     (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 68) absolutely preclude the detailed                    not involving fraud or abuse or any question of a change
     rules for the inclusion of periods of employment prior to                  in planned use, as mentioned in paragraphs 50 and 51 of
     17 May 1990 from being examined under Article 141(1)                       the judgment of the Court of Justice in Schloßstraße (2)
     and (2) EC (ex Article 119 of the EC Treaty)? Does the                     — the charging of tax on the basis of the abovementioned
     prohibition on such examination also apply where after                     Article 5(7)(a) when a taxable person has deducted VAT
     17 May 1990 the provisions relevant to the inclusion of                    which he has paid for goods delivered, or services
     periods of employment completed before the relevant                        provided, to him with a view to the planned leasing,
     date of 17 May 1990 have been amended but those                            subject to VAT, of a particular immovable property, on
     amendments effect only a partial adjustment in line with                   the simple ground that, as a result of a legislative
     the requirements of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and for                   amendment, the taxable person no longer has the right
     certain categories effect no such favourable adjustment?                   to waive the exemption for that lease?
                                                                          2.    Would an affirmative response to the first question also
11. In determining adherence to the relevant date of 17 May                     apply to a right to deduct arising in the period between
     1990 in the enactment of laws is the date of publication                   notification of the legislative amendment mentioned in
     in the official gazette decisive, or is the matter determined              Question 1 and its entry into force? In other words, in
     by the conclusion of deliberations in the legislative bodies               the event of an affirmative response to Question 1, can
     and indeed even if the law requires the assent of the                      tax still be charged, on the basis of Article 5(7)(a), on the
     Federal Government?                                                        elements of the cost price referred to in Article 11 A(1)(b)
                                                                                of the Sixth Directive which were incurred after that
                                                                                notification date?
(1) OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40.
(2) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.                                                   (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
(3) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.
                                                                              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).
                                                                          (2) Judgement of 8.6.2000 in case C-396/98.