title: Case C-173/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Sickness insurance — Hospital treatment provided in another Member State — Prior authorisation — Conditions of application of the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Methods of reimbursement to the insured person of hospital expenses incurred in another Member State — Obligation on a lower court to comply with the directions of a higher court)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa
   (Case C-173/09) (1)

   (Social security - Freedom to provide services - Sickness insurance - Hospital treatment provided in another Member State - Prior authorisation - Conditions of application of the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Methods of reimbursement to the insured person of hospital expenses incurred in another Member State - Obligation on a lower court to comply with the directions of a higher court)
   2010/C 328/09
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georgi Ivanov Elchinov

      Defendant: Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Art. 49 of the EC Treaty and Art. 22(1)(c) and (2), second para., of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) — Sickness insurance — National institution for sickness expenses refusing authorisation (Form E 112) for obtaining more effective medical treatment in a Member State other than that in which the insured patient is resident — Presumption of a necessary connection between that financing and the existence of that type of treatment in national territory — Meaning of ‘treatment which cannot be provided to the person concerned in the Member State of residence’ — Rules for authorisation of financing and system applicable to the repayment of costs incurred — Duty of a lower national court to comply with instructions on interpretation from a higher court which it considers contrary to Community law

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law precludes a national court which is called upon to decide a case referred back to it by a higher court hearing an appeal from being bound, in accordance with national procedural law, by legal rulings of the higher court, if it considers, having regard to the interpretation which it has sought from the Court, that those rulings are inconsistent with European Union law.

               2.

               Articles 49 EC and 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, preclude a rule of a Member State which is interpreted as excluding, in all cases, payment for hospital treatment given in another Member State without prior authorisation.

               3.

               With regard to medical treatment which cannot be given in the Member State on whose territory the insured person resides, the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that that authorisation required under Article 22(1)(c)(i) cannot be refused:

                           —

                           if, where the list of benefits for which the national legislation provides does not expressly and precisely specify the treatment method applied but defines types of treatment reimbursed by the competent institution, it is established, applying the usual principles of interpretation and on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, taking into consideration all the relevant medical factors and the available scientific data, that the treatment method in question corresponds to types of treatment included in that list, and

                           —

                           if no alternative treatment which is equally effective can be given without undue delay in the Member State on whose territory the insured person resides.

                     That article precludes the national bodies called upon to rule on an application for prior authorisation from presuming, in the application of that provision, that the hospital treatment which cannot be given in the Member State on whose territory the insured person resides is not included in the benefits for which reimbursement is provided for by the legislation of that State or, conversely, that the hospital treatment included in those benefits can be given in that Member State.

               4.

               Where it is established that a refusal to issue the authorisation required under Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, was unjustified, when the hospital treatment has been completed and the related expenses incurred by the insured person, the national court must oblige the competent institution, in accordance with national procedural rules, to reimburse that insured person in the amount which it would ordinarily have paid if authorisation had been properly granted.
               That amount is equal to that determined in accordance with the provisions of the legislation to which the institution of the Member State on whose territory the hospital treatment was given is subject. If that amount is less than that which would have resulted from application of the legislation in force in the Member State of residence if hospital treatment had been provided there, complementary reimbursement corresponding to the difference between those two amounts must in addition be made by the competent institution.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-406/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2017 — Acea Energia SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2017 — Acea Energia SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others
   (Case C-406/17)
   (2017/C 338/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Acea Energia SpA

      Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idirco, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

               2.

               Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

               3.

               Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

               4.

               Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

               5.

               Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2006 concerning unfair business — to — consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘unfair commercial practices directives’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (3)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).


title: Case C-210/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 180/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               (7) Is ‘extraction’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to the
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                        transfer of the contents of the database directly from the
court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British                        database to another medium, or does it also include the
Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and                             transfer of works, data or other materials, which are
3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organ-                       derived indirectly from the database, without having
                         ization Limited                                      direct access to the database?
                        (Case C-203/02)                                 (8) Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
                                                                              the making available to the public of the contents of the
                                                                              database directly from the database, or does it also include
                        (2002/C 180/23)                                       the making available to the public of works, data or other
                                                                              materials which are derived indirectly from the database,
                                                                              without having direct access to the database?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (9) Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                                                                              the first making available to the public of the contents of
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 24 May 2002,
                                                                              the database?
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) The British Horseracing
Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group               (10) In Article 7(5) of the Directive what is meant by ‘acts
Limited against William Hill Organization Limited, on the                     which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database
following questions:                                                          or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
                                                                              maker of the database’? In particular, are the facts and
(1) May either of the expressions:                                            matters in paragraphs 40-47 above in the context of the
                                                                              facts and matters in paragraphs 32-35 above capable of
     (a)  ‘substantial part of the contents of the database’; or              amounting to such acts?
     (b) ‘insubstantial parts of the contents of the database’          (11) Does Article 10(3) of the Directive mean that, whenever
                                                                              there is a ‘substantial change’ to the contents of a
     in Article 7 of the Directive (1) include works, data or                 database, qualifying the resulting database for its own
     other materials derived from the database but which do                   term of protection, the resulting database must be
     not have the same systematic or methodical arrangement                   considered to be a new, separate database, including for
     of and individual accessibility to be found in the database?             the purposes of Article 7(5)?
(2) What is meant by ‘obtaining’ in Article 7(1) of the
     Directive? In particular, are the facts and matters in             (1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. OJ L 77,
     paragraphs 24-31 above capable of amounting to such
                                                                            27.3.1996, p. 20.
     obtaining?
(3) Is ‘verification’ in Article 7(1) of the Directive limited to
     ensuring from time to time that information contained in
     a database is or remains correct?
(4) What is meant in Article 7(1) of the Directive, by the
     expressions:
                                                                        Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
     (a)  ‘a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively ... of the
                                                                        European Communities against the United Kingdom of
          contents of that database’? and
                                                                                Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) ‘a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively ... of the
          contents of that database’?                                                            (Case C-210/02)
(5) What is meant in Article 7(5) of the Directive, by the
     expression ‘insubstantial parts of the database’?                                           (2002/C 180/24)
(6) In particular, in each case:
     (a)  does ‘substantial’ mean something more than ‘insig-           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
          nificant’ and, if so, what?                                   Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of
     (b) does ‘insubstantial’ part simply mean that it is not           the European Communities, represented by Thomas Cusack,
          ‘substantial’?                                                acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 180/15
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar all the laws,        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                  and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (1) of                     Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of
       30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against               the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
       the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical               processing of personal data and the protection of privacy
       exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, or in                in the telecommunications sector (1), the Grand Duchy of
       any event by failing to communicate them to the                        Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
       Commission, the United Kingdom has failed fully to fulfil              directive;
       its obligations under that Directive.
                                                                        2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
According to Article 192(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall          The period prescribed for transposition expired on 24 October
take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,           1998 and 24 October 2000 (as regards Article 5 of the
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty      directive), respectively.
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.
The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
measures in order to comply with the directive is not disputed.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned with regard to Gibraltar, and since the Commission
is in possession of no other information enabling it to conclude        Action brought on 5 June 2002 by the Commission of the
that the United Kingdom has adopted the necessary provisions,             European Communities against the Republic of Austria
it is compelled to assume that the United Kingdom has not yet
adopted such provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its
obligations under the directive.                                                                 (Case C-212/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/26)
(1) JO L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Michel Nolin, of the Commission’s Legal
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the                  Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Rainer Roniger, Rechtsan-
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                         walt, of Haarmann and Hemmelrath, Brussels, having an
                           Luxembourg                                   address for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of
                                                                        the Commission’s Legal Service, Centre Wagner C 254.
                         (Case C-211/02)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 180/25)
                                                                        1.    Rule that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under the remedial Directives 89/665/EEC (1)
                                                                              and 92/13/EEC (2), in particular the obligations under
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           Articles 2(1)(a) and (b) thereof, since the Land procure-
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  ment laws of the Länder of Salzburg, Steiermark, Niederös-
ties on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the European                         terreich and Kärnten do not ensure in all cases that the
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt, acting as Agent,                      award decision is open to review in a procedure whereby
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    an unsuccessful tenderer can have that decision set aside;


title: Case C-143/04: Action brought on 17 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Action brought on 17 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-143/04)
   (2004/C 94/74)
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period prescribed for transposition of that directive expired on 22 December 2002.

      (1)  JO L 167, du 22 juin 2001, p. 10


title: Action brought on 22 September 1998 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-347/98)

text:
C 340/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                    provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
     costs.                                                         to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
put forward in Case C-335/98; the time-limits prescribed
by the directives expired on 30 June 1996, 1 February
1996 and 1 January 1997 respectively.                               Action brought on 22 September 1998 by Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ L 167 of 18.7.1995, p. 17.                                                               Belgium
(2) OJ L 184 of 3.8.1995, p. 34.                                                            (Case C-347/98)
(3) OJ L 321 of 2.12.1996, p. 20.
                                                                                (98/C 340/21)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 22 September 1998 by the Commission of the
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission               European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
       of the European Communities against Ireland                  Gouloussis and Peter Hillencamp, acting as Agents, with
                                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                       (Case C-346/98)                              Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (98/C 340/20)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 September                 Ð declare that, by levying personal contributions of
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     13,07 % on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                      payable to persons who do not reside in Belgium and
Adviser, and Michael Shotter, a national official seconded              who are no longer subject to the Belgian social
to the Commission under an arrangement for the                          security system, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for            fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1);
Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
Centre Wagner.                                                      Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Persons who no longer work in an employed or self-
Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           employed capacity in Belgium and who have transferred
                                                                    their residence to another Member State are exclusively
    comply with Directive 94/60/EC of the European
                                                                    subject to the laws of that Member State. Consequently,
    Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994
    amending for the fourteenth time Council Directive              the Belgian authorities are not authorised to levy
                                                                    contributions on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
    76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions of the                payable to persons who are in such a situation.
    Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances (1),          Belgium wrongly refers to the benefits payable under
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,             Article 52 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to persons
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that         who sustain an accident at work or who contract an
    Directive; and                                                  occupational disease. Those benefits are not sickness
                                                                    benefits within the meaning of the first chapter of the
                                                                    regulation; they constitute other benefits in kind which are
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   specifically designed to meet needs arising from accidents
                                                                    at work or occupational diseases. Unlike the rule laid
                                                                    down in Article 33, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EEC)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    No 1408/71 contains no provision enabling the competent
                                                                    State to levy contributions in order to finance benefits
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall         payable as a result of an accident at work or an
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each              occupational disease.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid             (1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
down in the directive. That period expired on
20 December 1995 without Ireland having enacted the


title: Case C-192/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 April 2012 — Melvin West v Virallinen syyttäjä

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 April 2012 — Melvin West v Virallinen syyttäjä
   (Case C-192/12)
   2012/C 184/10
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Melvin West

      Defendant: Virallinen syyttäjä

      Question referred

   In applying Article 28(2) of the Framework Decision, does ‘executing Member State’ mean the Member State from which a person was originally surrendered to another Member State on the basis of a European arrest warrant, or that second Member State from which the person was surrendered to a third Member State which is now requested to surrender the person onward to a fourth Member State? Or is consent perhaps required from both Member States?


title: Case T-701/16 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of 21 July 2016 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-91/15, AV v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/37

         Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of 21 July 2016 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-91/15, AV v Commission
   (Case T-701/16 P)
   (2017/C 014/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: AV (Cadrezzate, Italy)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the court of first instance;

               —

               Reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) committed two errors of law. In the first place, the CST annulled the contested decision, namely the decision of the Commission, of 16 September 2014, to apply to the other party in the proceedings the medical reservation clause provided for in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and to refuse to award him an invalidity allowance, notwithstanding the fact that a decision may be annulled only exceptionally on the ground of infringement of the reasonable time principle. In the second place, the CST wrongly found that the excessive delay in taking the decision could affect the very content of the decision. The appellant alleges, moreover, an infringement of the duty to provide reasons with regard to that second aspect.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law resulting from the fact that, as the CST annulled the contested decision by holding that the delay in the conduct of administrative procedures, which was found to be excessive, affected the very content of the decision, the judgment under appeal disregarded the principle of res judicata.


title: Case C-603/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — France) — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Éducation Nationale (Competition — Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU — Supplementary health insurance — Mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with the practitioners of their choice — Difference in treatment — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/5

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — France) — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Éducation Nationale
   (Case C-603/11) (1)

   (Competition - Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Supplementary health insurance - Mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with the practitioners of their choice - Difference in treatment - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 108/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hervé Fontaine

      Defendant: Mutuelle Générale de l'Éducation Nationale

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — Interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Competition — National legislation prohibiting mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided — Prohibition on the mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with practitioners of their choice — Difference of treatment in relation to other health insurance companies and institutions governed by the Code des Assurances or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale — Restrictions

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Juge de proximité, Chartres, by decision of 17 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case C-263/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/27

         Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-263/05)
   (2005/C 217/54)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Kontantinidis and L. Cimaglia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by having adopted and maintained in force a provision (Article 14 of Decree-Law No 138 of 8 July 2002, converted into Law No 178 of 8 August 2002) that provides for the exclusion from the ambit of Decree-Law No 22/97, which transposed into Italian national law Council Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC (2) on waste, substances or objects intended for operations for the disposal or recovery of waste not expressly listed in Annexes B or C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, and also goods, substances or residual production materials which the holder intends or is required to discard, when they may be and are reused in a production or consumption cycle, on condition that they have undergone no prior treatment and that they do not harm the environment or, if when they have undergone prior treatment, the latter is not one of the recovery operations listed in Annex C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The references made in Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of Law No 178/2002 to ‘disposal and recovery activities’ and to ‘disposal and recovery operations’ respectively is followed in both cases by the addition of ‘in accordance with Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22’.
   Such an addition, which does not however appear in the text of subparagraph (c) of that article, would seem to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, disposal or recovery operations in general and, on the other, those specifically referred to in Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22/97.
   In the light of such a distinction, it is quite apparent from a reading of Article 6(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 22/97 in conjunction with Article 14(a) and (b) of Law No 178/2002 that the effect of the latter provision is to circumscribe the scope of the concept of waste, which might not include all the materials, substances or goods falling within the categories in Annex A that the holder sends for, or subjects to, any disposal or recovery operation or intends to, but might rather include only those in respect of which disposal or recovery operations among those expressly listed in Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22/97 have been carried out or are contemplated.
   In the system defined by the Italian legislature, in which the concept of waste is made to depend incontrovertibly on those conditions, all those materials, substances or goods referred to in annex A that the holder sends for, or subjects to, or intends to send for or subject to, disposal operations not listed in Annex B to Legislative Decree No 22/97 or recovery operations not listed in Annex C thereto are therefore excluded from classification as waste, and as a result from being subject to the rules on the management of waste.
   The Commission takes the view that that exclusion constitutes an improper restriction of the concept of waste and therefore of the ambit of the Italian legislation on the management of waste. As a matter of fact, the effect of the interpretation put forward by the Italian legislature is to limit the application of the provisions of the directive to those cases alone which are identified in the Italian legislation, excluding from its ambit other cases, not deductively foreseeable, which could on the contrary be subject to it and in relation to which a broad interpretation of the concept of waste, such as that affirmed in paragraph 36 of the judgment in Palin Granit, is essential. The adoption of such a position by the Italian legislature runs counter to the provisions of the directive, from which a provision of national law may not derogate.

      (1)  OJ L 78 of 26/03/1991, p.32

      (2)  OJ L 194 of 25 July 1975, p. 39


title: Case C-405/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — PST CLC a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tariff classification — Validity of point 2 of the table in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 in respect of the period from 22 March 2004 to 22 December 2009 — Applicability of that provision to customs declarations made in 2008 — Classification of products intended for use in computers, consisting of a heat sink and a fan)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/10

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — PST CLC a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel
   (Case C-405/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tariff classification - Validity of point 2 of the table in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 in respect of the period from 22 March 2004 to 22 December 2009 - Applicability of that provision to customs declarations made in 2008 - Classification of products intended for use in computers, consisting of a heat sink and a fan))
   (2015/C 320/14)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PST CLC a.s.

      Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Point 2 of the table in the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature was invalid during the time in which it was in force, namely from 22 March 2004 to 22 December 2009.

               2.

               In so far the products at issue in the main proceedings consist of a heat sink and a fan and are intended exclusively for use in computers, which is a matter to be ascertained by the national court, they must be classified for tariff purposes on the basis of the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-529/09: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2012 — In ’t Veld v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service on a recommendation from the Commission to authorise the opening of negotiations for an international agreement — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice — Specific and foreseeable threat to the interest in question — Overriding public interest)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2012 — In ’t Veld v Council
   (Case T-529/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service on a recommendation from the Commission to authorise the opening of negotiations for an international agreement - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice - Specific and foreseeable threat to the interest in question - Overriding public interest)
   2012/C 184/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sophie in ’t Veld (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by M. Bauer, C. Fekete and O. Petersen, and subsequently by M. Bauer and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission, (represented by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 29 October 2009 refusing full access to document 11897/09 of 9 July 2009 containing an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service entitled ‘Recommendation from the Commission to the Council to authorise the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the United States of America for an international agreement to make available to the United States Treasury Department financial messaging data to prevent and combat terrorism and terrorist financing — Legal basis’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Council’s decision of 29 October 2009 insofar as it refuses access to the undisclosed parts of document 11897/09 other than those which concern the specific content of the envisaged agreement or the negotiating directives;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case F-28/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/44

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-28/14)
   2014/C 184/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the High Representative of the European Union to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff, to refuse to hear him as regards acts of psychological harassment, to reject his request that an external investigator should be appointed and to register his complaint as a request.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 20 December 2013 of the High Representative of the European Union, Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP) to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the CEOS with effect from 31 March 2014;

               —

               annul the decision of the HR/VP to refuse to hear the applicant, even though the applicant had expressly requested this in the covering letter accompanying his complaint of 9 December 2013 against the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS in respect of facts of psychological harassment;

               —

               annul the decision of the HR/VP to reject the applicant’s request to designate an external investigator of very high level, with wide experience of the conditions of employment governing the institutions of the European Union and who is completely impartial, for the purposes of determining the facts, drawing the appropriate conclusions from them and making recommendations to the HR/VP on the measures to be taken following that complaint;

               —

               annul the decision of the HR/VP to register his complaint as a request and to have it dealt with by the DG HR.D.2 ‘Legal Affairs, Communication and Stakeholder Relations’, no member of which is of the grade or has the authority of the official against whom the complaint was lodged;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Official Journal of the European Communities Information

text:
24.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 202/19
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Official Journal of the European Communities                            to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                              Ms Tiili (President of Chamber), Mr Pirrung, Mr Mengozzi,
                          Information                                         Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
                        (2002/C 202/27)                                       to the Fifth Chamber:
                                                                              Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of Chamber), Ms Lindh
                                                                              and Mr Cooke, Judges;
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of Judges to
Chambers                                                                      to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 4 July 2002 the Court of First Instance                     Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of Chamber), Ms Lindh,
decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council Decision of                  Mr Moura Ramos, Mr Cooke and Mr Legal, Judges;
24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, for the period between        Where the Judge Rapporteur is assigned to another Chamber
1 October 2002 and 30 September 2003:                                   of three judges as a result of the amendment of the composition
                                                                        of the Chambers, cases other than trade mark cases assigned
a.   to designate as Presidents of Chamber:                             to the Second Chamber and a number of staff cases assigned
                                                                        to the First Chamber on a pro rata basis shall be reassigned,
     —     Judge Garcı́a-Valdecasas                                     with effect from 1 October 2002, to the Chamber to which
                                                                        the Judge Rapporteur belongs after that date.
     —     Judge Lenaerts
                                                                        For cases in which the written procedure was completed and a
     —     Judge Tiili
                                                                        hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
     —     Judge Forwood                                                1 October 2002, the Chamber shall continue to sit with the
                                                                        same composition as before for the oral procedure, the
b.   to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance to            deliberation and the judgment.
     the Chambers as follows:
     to the First Chamber:                                              Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
     Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Legal,            At its meeting on 4 July 2002, the Court of First Instance
     Judges;                                                            established the following criteria for the assignment of cases
                                                                        to the Chambers for the period between 1 October 2002 and
     to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:                        30 September 2003 pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of
     Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Azizi, Mr Moura Ramos,               Procedure:
     Mr Jaeger and Mr Legal, Judges;
                                                                        1.    (a)    Actions which concern the implementation of the
     to the Second Chamber:                                                          rules concerning State aid and the rules on trade
                                                                                protection measures shall be assigned, with effect
     Mr Forwood (President of Chamber), Mr Pirrung and                               from the lodging of the application and without
     Mr Meij, Judges;                                                                prejudice to any subsequent application of
                                                                                Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to
     to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:                                    Chambers with an extended composition of five
     Mr Forwood (President of Chamber), Mr Pirrung,                                  Judges.
     P. Mengozzi, Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
                                                                              (b) All other cases shall be assigned, with effect from
     to the Third Chamber:                                                           the lodging of the application and without prejudice
                                                                                to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51
     Mr Lenaerts (President of Chamber), Mr Azizi and Mr Jae-                        of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three
     ger, Judges;                                                                    Judges.
     to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:                        2.    Cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be
     Mr Lenaerts (President of Chamber), Ms Lindh, Mr Azizi,                  assigned to Chambers as follows:
     Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
                                                                              (a)    The cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be
     to the Fourth Chamber:                                                          assigned in turn, according to the order in which
                                                                                they are registered at the Court Registry, to the First,
     Ms Tiili (President of Chamber), Mr Mengozzi and                                Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended
     Mr Vilaras, Judges;                                                             Composition;
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.8.2002
     (b) Cases concerning intellectual property rights, as                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Pro-
           cedure, shall be assigned, according to the order in
           which they are registered at the Court Registry, to
           the Second, and Fourth Chambers;                                                       of 4 July 2002
     (c)   The other cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall
           be assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and          in Case T-340/99: Arne Mathisen AS v Council of the
           Fifth Chambers. Such assignment is to be effected                                   European Union (1)
           on the basis of three separate rotas, according to the
           order in which they are registered at the Court
           Registry:
                                                                        (Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties — Far-
                                                                        med Atlantic salmon — Action for annulment — Undertak-
           —     For the cases referred to in Article 236 of the        ing — Circumvention — Obligation to cooperate — Breach
                 EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;           — Principle of proportionality — Claim for compensation)
           —     For the cases concerning the implementation
                 of the rules on competition applicable to
                 undertakings;                                                                   (2002/C 202/28)
           —     For the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
           For the purposes of the rota mentioned in the first
           indent above, the assignment of intellectual property
           cases to the Second and Fourth Chambers on the
           basis of the rota mentioned in paragraph 2(b) shall
           be offset by the assignment of cases to the First,
           Third and Fifth Chambers on a pro rata basis.                In Case T-340/99, Arne Mathisen AS, established in Værøy
                                                                        (Norway), represented by S. Knudtzon, lawyer, with an address
           For the purposes of the rotas referred to in para-           for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union
           graphs 2(a) and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First        (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch), supported by Com-
           Chamber, Extended Composition, presided by the               mission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz
           President of the Court of First Instance, shall not be       and S. Meany): Application for annulment of Council Regu-
           included in those lists every third time the end of a        lation (EC) No 1895/1999 of 27 August 1999 amending
           rota is reached.                                             Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 imposing definitive anti-dump-
                                                                        ing and countervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic
           The President of the Court of First Instance may
                                                                        salmon originating in Norway (OJ 1999 L 233, p. 1) and
           derogate from that order on the ground that cases
                                                                        compensation for damage suffered as a result of the adoption
           are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread
                                                                        of the regulation, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
           of the workload.
                                                                        Extended Composition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President,
                                                                        V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                        J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                        judgment on 4 July 2002, in which it:
Plenary session
At its meeting on 4 July 2002, the Court of First Instance              1.    Dismisses the application;
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 32(1)
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that
where, following the designation of an Advocate General                 2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an                 of the Council;
even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in
plenary session, the rota established in advance in accordance
with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge         3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according to
their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is              (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.


title: Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-361/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pordenone by order of that court of 18 October 1995 in the
 Case of Tommaso Morellato and Usl No 11 , Pordenone                 1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
                        ( Case C-358/95 )                                in the alternative, communicate, within the prescribed
                           ( 96/C 16/13                                  period, the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                         91/371 /EEC ( J ) of 20 June 1991 on the implementation
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   of the Agreement between the European Economic
European Communities by an order of the Pretura                          Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning
( Magistrates Court), Pordenone, of 18 October 1995 ,                    direct insurance other than life assurance, the Kingdom
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November                  of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tommaso                   Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
Morellato v. Usl No 11 , Pordenone :
                                                                         European Communitiy;
— are Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty establishing the EEC
                                                                     2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
    to be interpreted as precluding the Italian legislation on
    the working and marketing of cereals, flour, bread and
    pasta ( Law No 480 of 4 July 1967), in so far as such            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    legislation prohibits the sale of deep-frozen special
    wholemeal bread having:                                          The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                     and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
    — a moisture content in excess of the percentages                Member States to adopt the appropriate measures in order
         referred to in Article 16 ,                                 to ensure compliance with the obligations stemming from
    — an ash content lower than that prescribed by                   the Directives, observing the time limits laid down therein .
         Article 16 in conjunction with Article 7 ( 3 ),             That period expired on 4 July 1993 without the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain having brought into force the necessary provisions.
    — an admixture of bran, which is not a permitted
         ingredient,                                                 (') OJ No L 205 , 27. 7. 1991 , p . 48 .
    accordingly, are those legislative provisions to be
    regarded as a quantitative restriction or a measure
    having equivalent effect thereto within the meaning of
    Article 30 ?
— In the event of an affirmative answer to that question, is         Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission
    the Italian State, in circumstances such as those of this        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
    case, entitled to rely on the derogation provided for in                                        Spain
    Article 36 of the EC Treaty, for the purpose of protecting
    public health ?                                                                          Case C-361/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/15 )
— Is the Italian legislation to be disapplied by the Italian
    courts ?
                                                                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
— Is the free movement on Italian territory of bread                 23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European
    produced in France and described as aforesaid to be              Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis and B. Vila
    permitted ?                                                      Costa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of C. Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                     Centre, Kirchberg Plateau .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                                                                     1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
                                                                         in the alternative, communicate, within the prescribed
                        ( Case C-360/95                                  period, the laws, regulations or administrative
                           ( 96/C 16/14 )                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                         92/49/EEC (*) of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      to direct insurance other than life assurance, the
23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European                       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis and B. Vila                    under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
Costa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  European Community;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg Plateau .                                          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/8             | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                 failed to give any consideration at all to one of the
those of Case C-360/95 (2 ). The time limit for transposition          appellants' claims.
expired on 31 December 1993 .
                                                                       In particular, in relation to the matters of fact found by the
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 11 . 8 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            Court of First Instance in its judgment, the appellants'
( 2 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal .                            appeal is based on the errors of law committed by the Court
                                                                       of First Instance in that connection — the obvious
                                                                       substantive inaccuracy of findings, the misuse of evidence,
                                                                       the failure to apply properly the rules and principles relating
                                                                       to the burden of proof.
Appeal brought on 27 November 1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur
DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald       The appellants contend that underlying the Court of First
Cohen against the judgment delivered on 18 September                   Instance's judgment was a basic error ( or series of errors ) of
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the              law concerning the correct legal test of causation.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-168/94 (') between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, (2 )                H OJ No C 286, p . 13 .
Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the
                      European Communities
                         ( Case C-362/95 P                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                             ( 96/C 16/16                              circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                       order of that court of 8 November 1995 in criminal
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                          proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the                                       Case C-363/95 )
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                                             ( 96/C 16/17)
Case T-168/94 between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven
Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, ( 4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the                 European Communities by order of the Pretura
European Communities, was brought before the Court of                  circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
Justice of the European Communities on 27 November                     District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 8 November
1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M.      1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen, represented by K. P. E. Lasok,           27 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal
QC, instructed by Charles Khan of Berg & Co., Solicitors,              proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi .
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Maria Dennewald, 12, avenue de la Porte Neuve .                     The questions referred by the Pretura circondariale di Roma
                                                                       — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a
The appellants request the Court to order that:                        preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case
                                                                       C-58/95 ( M.
( a ) the decision of the Court of First Instance be set
       aside;                                                          (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
( b ) the case be remitted to the Court of First Instance;
        and
(c ) the Council and the Commission pay the Appellants'                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
       costs .
                                                                       Hamburg by orders of 22 September 1995 and
                                                                       27 September 1995 in the cases of Firma T. Port GmbH &
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
The appellants submit that the judgment of the Court of                               ( Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 )
First Instance is vitiated by errors of law. These errors of law                                   ( 96/C 16/18 )
comprise infringement of the Appellants' right to a fair trial,
as understood in the context of Article 6 of the Convention
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                     European Communities by orders of the Joint Senate of the
Freedoms, the rights of defence and general principles of              Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) for
 Community law.                                                        the Länder of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg,
The appellants did not benefit from a fair trial for various           Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of
 reasons : the Court of First Instance's judgment is riddled           22 September and 27 September 1995 , which were received
with suggestio falsi and suppressio veri in relation both to           at the Court Registry on 16 November 1995 , for a
 the nature of the appellants' case and the evidence and               preliminary ruling in the case of Firma T. Port GmbH
 sources of evidence available to the Court of First Instance;          & Co. v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office )
 the Court of First Instance misused the evidence before it            Hamburg-Jonas on the first, second and third questions in
 and refrained from ordering measures of enquiry even                   Case C- 1 82/95 ( M.
 though it was appropriate to do so; the Court of First
                                                                        0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 12 .
 Instance failed to give any or any sufficient reasons for a
 number of its conclusions; and the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-117/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2014  — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v José María Ariza Toledano (Taberna del Marqués)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2014 — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v José María Ariza Toledano (Taberna del Marqués)
   (Case C-117/14)
   2014/C 151/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava

      Defendant: José María Ariza Toledano (Taberna del Marqués)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is national legislation under which employment contracts of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs are made subject to a probationary period of one year, during which the employee may freely be dismissed, contrary to EU law, and is it compatible with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]?

               2.

               Is the probationary period of one year to which employment contracts of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs are made subject prejudicial to the objectives of, and to the rules laid down in, Directive 1999/70/EC (2) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — clauses 1 and 3?

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-145/04: Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta Righini against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/10

         Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta Righini against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-145/04)
   (2004/C 179/20)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 2004 by Elisabetta Righini, living in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decisions classifying the applicant at Grade A7-3 on her entry into service, whether as a member of the temporary staff or as a probationary official, such decisions having been notified to her on 27 May 2003 and 30 June 2003;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges her classification in Grade A7, Step 3, on her appointment as a probationary official on 21 May 2003.
   In support of her claims, she alleges:

               —

               infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               infringement of the Commission's decision of 1 September 1983, as amended on 7 February 1996, specifying the criteria to be applied when classifying members of the temporary staff and officials in their grade and step upon recruitment;

               —

               infringement of certain general principles of law, such as the principle of equal treatment, the protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to have due regard to the welfare of officials, and also of the principles requiring the appointing authority to make a decision only on the basis of relevant grounds, not vitiated by an obvious error of assessment.

         The applicant argues that both her exceptional qualifications and the profile of the post in question, which required that a particularly qualified person be appointed, justified her classification in Grade A6.


title: Case T-11/04: Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 14 January 2004 by Georges
                                                                          Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
—     Annul the final decision of 20 December 2002 fixing the             Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers,
      applicant’s classification on recruitment in Grade B 3              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      with effect from 1 March 1988;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2003 in so
                                                                                far as it:
The applicant was classified in Grade B, Step 3, upon entering
the service of the Commission in March 1988 and is contesting                   —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 June 1991, the
the appointing authority’s decision not to reclassify him after                       applicant’s classification on recruitment in Gra-
reconsidering his situation following the judgment of the                             de A 6, Step 1;
Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert.
                                                                                —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 April 2000, his
In support of his claims, the applicant submits that in                               classification in Grade A 5, Step 3;
reconsidering his file, the Commission took the view that his
professional experience could be taken into account only from                   —     limits the pecuniary effects to 5 October 1005;
May 1970, the date on which he obtained the diploma
rendering him eligible for a Category B post. The applicant               —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
claims that he obtained his diploma of secondary education in
July 1964. He submits that the decision is vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment and is therefore unlawful.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
Article 5 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The applicant was classified in Grade A 7, Step 3, upon
                                                                          entering the service in June 1991 with the Economic and
                                                                          Social Committee and was transferred to the Commission on
                                                                          1 November 1992. On 31 July 2002, the appointing authority
Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins                      of the Economic and Social Committee revised and fixed his
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      recruitment on classification in Grade A 6, Step 1.
                          (Case T-11/04)
                                                                          In the applicant’s submission, the Commission was therefore
                         (2004/C 59/59)
                                                                          required to take the measures to implement that decision with
                   (Language of the case: French)                         effect from 1 November 1992, the date on which he was
                                                                          transferred to its services, and also to reconstruct his career; as
                                                                          it has failed to do so, it has infringed Articles 62 and 45 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Staff Regulations and also the principle that an official is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                entitled to reasonable career prospects.


title: Case T -338/09: Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Other (MBP)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/73

         Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Other (MBP)
   (Case T -338/09)
   2009/C 267/132
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: E. Popp (Munich, Germany), W. E. Sajda (Munich), J. Bohnenberger (Munich), V. Kruspig (Munich)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 in Case R 1176/2007-4 and amendment of it so as to reject the appeal and objection in their entirety;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MBP’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 (Application No. 1 407 857)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: E. Popp, W. E. Sajda, J. Bohnenberger and V. Kruspig

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘ip_law@mbp.’ for services in Class 42 (Community Trademark No. 667 105) and the special trade name ‘mbp.de.’ under German trade mark law

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1),] since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).