title: Case C-580/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Johannes Van der Weegen, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Johannes Van der Weegen, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-580/15)
   (2016/C 038/41)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Johannes Van der Weegen, Anna Pot

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Does Article 21(5) of the 1992 Belgian Income Tax Code (WIB 1992), as amended by Article 170 of the Law of 25 April 2014 laying down various provisions, infringe the provisions of Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU and Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, inasmuch as the provision in question, although applicable without distinction to domestic and foreign service providers, requires compliance with conditions similar to those included in Article [2] of the Royal Decree implementing the 1992 Income Tax Code (KB/WIB 1992) which are de facto specific to the Belgian market and consequently amount to a serious obstacle to foreign service providers offering their services in Belgium?


title: Case C-477/08: Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/17

         Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-477/08)
   (2009/C 69/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


               24.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/5

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd
   (Case E-28/13)
   (2014/C 121/05)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 December 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 17 December 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd, on the following questions:

               1.

               Should Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/24/EC, on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, be interpreted as meaning that ‘the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts’ refers to the rules on the rescission of measures taken by a financial undertaking according to rules that are comparable to those that apply to the rescission of measures taken by a bankrupt individual under the Bankruptcy (Etc.) Act?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that rescission of the measure would not be permitted under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure, with reference to rules of any type, e.g. rules on time limits for taking legal action?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the negative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that the conditions for rescission under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure have evidently not been met, e.g. because there is a complete lack of authorisation for the rescission of the type of measure involved?


title: Case C-223/17 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2017 by Lubrizol France SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2017 in Case T-191/14: Lubrizol France SAS v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/11

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2017 by Lubrizol France SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 February 2017 in Case T-191/14: Lubrizol France SAS v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-223/17 P)
   (2017/C 221/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lubrizol France SAS (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, A. Bochon, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment in Case T-191/14, Lubrizol France v Council of the European Union as it relates to the two pleas in the appellant’s application before the General Court;

               —

               uphold both of those pleas as well-founded;

               —

               exercise its powers to adjudicate itself on the two pleas in question and render final judgment;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court so that it can decide upon the applicant’s two pleas on infringements in law and procedure; and

               —

               order the Council and any interveners to pay the appellant’s legal costs and expenses of this procedure as well as the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the General Court failed to assess the Council’s application of the relevant test against the correct legal standard
               The appellant avers that in failing to apply the relevant criteria contained in the Commission’s communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (Notice 2011/C 363/02 (1)) when assessing whether the autonomous duty suspension for BPA should be terminated, the General Court failed to properly assess the Council’s and the Commission’s submissions against the relevant legal test and in accordance with the correct legal standards to be applied in that situation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court impermissibly substituted its own reasoning for that of the Council and manifestly distorted the evidence
               The appellant avers, in the first instance, that the General Court impermissibly sought to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Council and the Commission and, in so doing, provided an impermissible reason of its own for supporting the notion that the merchandise offered by the objector could be considered identical, equivalent or substitutable materials for BPA.
               In the second instance, it avers that the General Court assessed the evidence relevant to the objector’s ability to supply sufficiently available volumes of the allegedly comparable merchandise to BPA in a manner that was manifestly incorrect, thereby distorting the clear sense of the evidence and its application to the evaluation of the case at first instance.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court made manifest errors in the application of the relevant procedures and the adoption of contradictory reasoning
               The appellant avers that the General Court erred in law by ruling that the Commission’s power to reject an objection because of a period of delay in replying significantly longer than the 15 working days prescribed in the Commission’s communication related only first contact between the objector and the requesting companies and not to subsequent communications which allowed the General Court to consider that delay irrelevant. In so doing, the General Court adopted contradictory reasoning relating to the nature, functioning and roles of the different parties to the procedure laid down by the Commission’s communication.

      (1)  OJ 2011, C 363, p. 6.


title: Case T-411/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Sogelma v EAR (Public works contracts — Tender procedure of the European Agency for Reconstruction — Decision to cancel tender procedure and to publish a new procedure — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Necessity of a prior administrative complaint — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Instructions to act as agent — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Application for damages)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Sogelma v EAR
   (Case T-411/06) (1)

   (Public works contracts - Tender procedure of the European Agency for Reconstruction - Decision to cancel tender procedure and to publish a new procedure - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Necessity of a prior administrative complaint - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Instructions to act as agent - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Application for damages)
   (2008/C 301/51)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Sogelma — Societá generale lavori manutenzioni appalti Srl (Scandicci, Italy) (represented by: E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini, A. Bandini and A. Gironi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: initially by O. Kalha, subsequently by M. Dischendorfer and then by R. Lundgren, Agent and by S. Bariatti and F. Scanzano, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and L. Prete, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of decisions of the EAR relating to cancellation of the tender procedure for the public works contract reference EuropeAid/120694/D/W/YU and organisation of a new tender procedure, and an application for compensation for loss allegedly suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sogelma — Societá generale lavori manutenzioni appalti Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Agency for Reconstruction;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case F-9/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — AC v Council (Civil service — Promotion — 2009 promotion exercise — Comparative examination of merit — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — AC v Council
   (Case F-9/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Promotion - 2009 promotion exercise - Comparative examination of merit - Manifest error of assessment)
   2011/C 362/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of persons promoted to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AC to pay the entirety of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010, p. 79.


title: Case T-668/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Community procurement procedure — Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg — Rejection of the bid of a tenderer — Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision — Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid — Action for damages)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/75

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
   (Case T-668/11) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Community procurement procedure - Transport of Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during sessions at Strasbourg - Rejection of the bid of a tenderer - Annulment by the General Court of the rejection decision - Loss allegedly suffered following the decision rejecting the applicant’s bid - Action for damages)
   2013/C 225/166
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: G. Hellinckx and M. Mraz and subsequently by: L. Darie and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 rejecting its tender submitted in the context of the tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1), subsequently annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament [2009] ECR II-1403.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders VIP Car Solutions SARL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 30 May 2002 in Case C-376/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)

text:
C 169/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and             Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
adminstrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-                      fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (First
mission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998 adapting                    Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
to technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batter-               M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
ies and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
(OJ 1999 L 1, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the              on 16 May 2002, in which it:
Commission thereof, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)                1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                    the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May                      order to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
2002, in which it:                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
                                                                                the placing of biocidal products on the market, the Grand
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                that directive.
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
      Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998 adapting to
      technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries          2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances, the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Directive 98/101;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (First Chamber)
                           (First Chamber)                                                              30 May 2002
                             16 May 2002                                    in Case C-376/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
in Case C-372/01: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/21)
                           (2002/C 169/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      In Case C-376/01, Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan):
                                                                            Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, by
                                                                            14 May 2000, the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                                                                            visions necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the
In Case C-372/01, Commission of the European Communities                    European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998
(Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
J. Faltz): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt          (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1), or in any event by failing to inform the
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary               Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament                 under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the                       P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123,                  and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
p. 1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the              Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/13
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period       1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament              2.    The parties to the appeal are to bear their own costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 355 of 25.11.2000.
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                of 2 May 2002
                          of 13 March 2002                                  in Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre                          (Appeal — Officials — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/23)
(Appeal — Officials — Non-renewal of contract as a
member of the temporary staff — Rejection of application
for post — Admissibility — Competence — Legality of                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                           vacancy notices)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                           (2002/C 169/22)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni, residing at Amandola
                                                                            (Italy), represented by W. Massucci — appeal against the order
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (First Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case T-314/00
                                                                            Cognigni v Commission (not published in the European Court
                                                                            Reports), seeking to have that order set aside, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —
In Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the                    the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium),              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere — appeal against the                A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2002, the operative
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case T-87/                   part of which is as follows:
99 Hendrickx v Cedefop [2000] ECR-SC I-A-147 and II-679,
seeking to have that judgment partially set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being the European Centre for the                  1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), represented
by B. Wägenbaur — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   2.    Mr Cognigni is to pay the costs.
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)
and S. von Bahr, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, C.W.A. Timm-                (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
ermans and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-305/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE — Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
   (Case T-305/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DYNIQUE - Earlier Community word mark DIPTYQUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 80/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy (Westerburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Loos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by A. Pohlmann and subsequently by G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diptyque SAS (Paris, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2010 (Case R 1217/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Diptyque SAS and Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-40/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus (Finland) by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä (Public Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry

text:
3.4.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko                    Italian pro rata pension must be the unaugmented notional
Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-                 pension (non-supplemented theoretical amount) where the
ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against                       pensioner’s income exceeds the limits laid down by Italian law
                       Hellenic Republic                                for entitlement to the supplement to bring the pension up to
                                                                        the statutory minimum amount?
                         (Case C-25/04)
                                                                        (1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416.
                         (2004/C 85/23)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance) of 30 Septem-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 26 January 2004,
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE
                                                                        (Finland) by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the
against Hellenic Republic on the following questions:
                                                                        case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä
                                                                                (Public Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry
The questions in this case are identical to those in Case C-23/
04.                                                                                (Case C-40/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/25)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
Bolzano by order of that Court of 9 January 2004 in the                 (Finland) (Supreme Court) of 30 January 2004, received at the
case of Koschitzki Ursel against Istituto Nazionale della               Court Registry on 3 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
                  Previdenza Sociale (INPS)                             the case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä (Public
                                                                        Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry on the following questions:
                         (Case C-30/04)
                                                                        (1) What sort of limits does Community law, having regard
                                                                              in particular to Council Directive 98/37/EC (1) and
                         (2004/C 85/24)                                       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, lay down for the obligations
                                                                              which may be imposed in national law on the importer
                                                                              (or other distributor) of a machine bearing the CE
                                                                              marking in relation to the characteristics of the machine
                                                                              which concern safety
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bolzano
of 9 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 January               —     before the onward sale of the machine and
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koschitzki Ursel
against Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) on                 —     afterwards?
the following question:
                                                                        (2) Clarification is hoped for in particular as to:
In the light of Article 42 of the EC Treaty (as amended by the
Treaties of Amsterdam and of Nice), which requires the                        (a)   the extent to which and the conditions under which
adoption of appropriate measures in the field of social security                    the obligations of action or supervision in relation
for the implementation of the free movement of workers, can                         to the safety of the machine imposed on the
Article 46(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted                        importer (or other distributor) of a machine bearing
as meaning that the basis of calculation of the Italian pro rata                    the CE marking may be regarded as permitted from
pension must always be the notional pension, supplemented                           the point of view of Community law;
to bring it up to the statutory minimum pension, even if the
income limits laid down by Italian law for bringing the pension               (b) whether and in what way the assessment in relation
up to the statutory minimum have been exceeded (Article 6 of                        to Community law of the obligations imposed on
Law No 638/83, amended by Article 4 of Legislative Decree                           the importer (or other distributor) depends on what
No 503/92), or, on the other hand, must Article 46(2)(b) be                         sort of defects relating to the safety of the machine
interpreted as meaning that the basis of calculation of the                         are concerned;
 ---pagebreak--- C 85/16                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         3.4.2004
      (c)   whether, and if so to what extent, the provisions of            (Federal Finance Court) of 27 November 2003, received at the
            § 40 of the Työturvallisuuslaki mentioned in point              Court Registry on 4 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
            10 above conflict with Community law, having                    the case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern on the
            regard to the consequences as regards criminal law              following questions:
            and the law on compensation, described in points 12
            to 15 above, which derive from failure to comply                1.    May or must the Member States which have incorporated
            with them.                                                            into their domestic law the common flat-rate scheme for
                                                                                farmers provided for in Article 25 of Directive 77/388/
(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                                EEC (1) ultimately exempt flat-rate farmers from payment
    of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                of turnover tax?
    States relating to machinery (OJ L 207 of 23.7.1998, p. 1).
                                                                            2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is that the
                                                                                case only for supplies of agricultural products and for
                                                                                agricultural services or also for other transactions of a
                                                                                flat-rate farmer, or are the other transactions subject to
                                                                                the general scheme under Directive 77/388/EEC?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                             What are the consequences for the grant of a hunting
beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of                           licence by a flat-rate farmer?
23 January 2004 in the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M.
Elshof against the Minister for Agriculture, Nature and
                            Food Quality                                    (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
                           (Case C-42/04)
                          (2004/C 85/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
European Communities by order of the College van beroep                     Gorizia by order of that Court of 18 December 2003,
voor het bedrijfsleven of 23 January 2004, received at the                  nos. 1259/2003 and 1260/2003, in the proceedings pend-
Court Registry on 3 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in              ing between Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto & Andrea
the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M. Elshof against the Minister                                        and AGEA
for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the following
question:
                                                                                (Case C-44/04 and C-45/04)
Does the term ‘batch’ in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No
1046/2001 (1) have the same meaning as the term ‘load’ in                                             (2004/C 85/28)
point 1 of Annex II to that regulation or must the term ‘batch’
be taken to mean all the animals which are delivered for
rendering by a holding on one day or pursuant to one decision
to purchase?                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia
                                                                            (Italy) of 18 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
(1) OJ L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 31.
                                                                            4 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                            pending between Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto & Andrea
                                                                            and AGEA on the following questions:
                                                                            Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                     1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in the                       28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
     case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern                       additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
                           (Case C-43/04)                                   exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
                          (2004/C 85/27)
                                                                            (1) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof


title: Case C-168/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014  — Grupo Itevelesa SL and Others v OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA and Another

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2014 — Grupo Itevelesa SL and Others v OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA and Another
   (Case C-168/14)
   2014/C 175/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Section Three of the Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology SL, Certio ITV SL and Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE

      Other parties to proceedings: OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA and Generalidad de Cataluña

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does Article 2(2)[(d)] of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market exclude vehicle roadworthiness tests from the scope of the directive where national legislation provides that these are to be carried out by private commercial entities under the supervision of the authorities of a Member State?

               2)

               If the previous question is answered in the negative (and vehicle roadworthiness tests do, in principle, fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC), are the grounds for exclusion referred to in Article 2(2)(i) of the directive applicable due to the fact that the private entities providing the service are empowered, as a precautionary measure, to order that vehicles found to have safety defects such that they would represent an imminent danger if driven, should be taken off the road?

               3)

               If Directive 2006/123/EC applies to vehicle roadworthiness tests, does that directive, when interpreted in conjunction with Article 2 of Directive 2009/40/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (or the equivalent provision of its predecessor, Directive 96/96/EC), mean that it is permissible to make such activities subject to prior administrative authorisation in every case? Does what is said in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-438/08 (3) have any bearing on the reply to this question?

               4)

               Is it compatible with Articles 10 and 14 of Directive 2006/123/EC or, if that directive is not applicable, Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), for national legislation to make the number of licences for roadworthiness testing centres subject to a local plan which justifies the quantitative restriction on the grounds of ensuring adequate local coverage, ensuring the quality of the service and encouraging competition between operators and, to that end, includes factors relating to economic planning?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 141, p. 12.

      (3)  EU: C:2099:651.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-297/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner): Vera A. Partridge v Adjudication Officer (Social security - Special non-contributory benefits - Articles 4(2a), 5 and 10a of and Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Attendance allowance - Non-exportability)

text:
C 258/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
2. Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71, as inserted          P. LeÂger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
    by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June              a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
    1991, does not preclude the legislation of a Member
    State from making the right of a person who has
    ceased all occupational activity in its territory to
    remain subject to its legislation dependent on his             On a proper construction of Article 10a of Council
    continued residence there.                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                   application of social security schemes to employed
                                                                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                   families moving within the Community, as amended and
3. Regulation No 1408/71 does not preclude the                     updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
    legislation of a Member State from providing that a            2 June 1983, as subsequently amended by Council
    person who has ceased all occupational activity in its         Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992, read in
    territory loses the right to continue to receive family        conjunction with Annex IIa, attendance allowance falls
    benefits paid under that legislation on the ground that        within the scope of that provision and is therefore a
    he has transferred his residence to another Member             special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of
    State where he lives with the members of his family.           Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result that the
                                                                   position of a person, such as the applicant in the main
                                                                   proceedings, who satisfied the conditions for the award of
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.                                         that benefit after 1 June 1992 when Regulation (EEC)
                                                                   No 1247/92 entered into force, is governed exclusively by
                                                                   the system of coordination established by the said
                                                                   Article 10a.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Third Chamber)
                        of 11 June 1998
in Case C-297/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Social Security Commissioner): Vera A. Partridge v
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   Adjudication Officer (1)
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
(Social security Ð Special non-contributory benefits Ð
Articles 4(2a), 5 and 10a of and Annex VI to Regulation            in Case C-361/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Attendance allowance Ð Non-                     the Finanzgericht Köln): SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale des Grandes
                         exportability)                            Sources d'Eaux MineÂrales FrancËaises v Bundesamt für
                                                                                Finanzen (1)
                         (98/C 258/10)
                                                                   (Value added tax Ð Interpretation of Article 3(a) of the
                                                                   Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC Ð Obligation of
                                                                   tax-payers not established in the country concerned to
               (Language of the case: English)                     Annex the original invoices or import documents to
                                                                   applications for a refund of the tax Ð Possibility of
                                                                   annexing a duplicate where the original has been lost for
                                                                           reasons beyond the control of the tax-payer)
In Case C-297/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Social Security Commissioner                                       (98/C 258/11)
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before him between Vera A. Partridge
and the Adjudication Officer Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2 June 1983 (OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6), as                                published in the European Court Reports)
subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992,
p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho               In Case C-361/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
de Almeida (Rapporteur), and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;             of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance


title: Case C-396/01: Action brought on 10 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 369/8               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by the Commission                        For the purposes of designating and revising the designation
        of the European Communities against Ireland                        of vulnerable zones, Article 6 of the directive requires Member
                                                                           States to carry out monitoring of nitrate concentrations and to
                                                                           review the eutrophic state of fresh surface waters, estuarial,
                        (Case C-396/01)                                    coastal and marine waters, according to specified timetables.
                                                                           The Commission contends that Ireland has failed in practice
                                                                           to monitor and review correctly in accordance with Article 6.
                        (2001/C 369/13)
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
                                                                               the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                               agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Directive 91/676/EEC (1) concerning the protection
      of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from                                            (Case C-407/01)
      agricultural sources by failing, within the time-limits
      provided for in the Directive, to completely identify
                                                                                (2001/C 369/14)
      waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in accordance with the
      criteria set out in Annex I and to notify these to the
      Commission, to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to
      Article 3(2) and/or 3(4), to establish action programmes
      in accordance with Article 5, and to correctly and                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      completely carry out monitoring and review of waters in              ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (c);                        Communities on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                           Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J.S. van
                                                                           den Oosterkamp, acting as Agents.
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  18 July 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001
                                                                                as regards safeguard measures with regard to imports
                                                                                from the overseas countries and territories of mixtures of
On the basis of the information available to it, the Commission                  sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating status for the
considers that Ireland has failed to identify waters in accord-                  period 1 July to 1 December 2001;
ance with the criteria of Annex I of the directive. In so far as
Ireland may argue that it has identified waters in accordance              —     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
with Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Commission would                         ings.
contend that Ireland has failed to notify the Commission of
these waters within the time-frame foreseen by Article 12 of
the directive.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Ireland has not established and applied action programmes
throughout its territory, as it is entitled to do under Article 3(5)       —     Connection with Regulation No 1325/2001, the annul-
of the directive. Therefore, the exemption, given in Article 3(5),               ment of which is the subject-matter of Case C-325/01 (1).
from the obligation to identify specific vulnerable zones does                   A ruling that Regulation No 1325/2001 is void will
not arise. However, Ireland has not designated any vulnerable                    remove any basis for Regulation No 1476/2001;
zones in accordance with Article 3(2) and/or 3(4). It is
currently the only Member State with a complete absence of                 —     Infringement of Article 109(1) of Council Decision
such designations. A corollary of Ireland’s failure to designate                 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries
any vulnerable zones is its failure to establish any action                      and territories with the European Economic Community
programmes in accordance with Article 5 of the directive.                        (‘the OCT Decision’): in so far as the Commission takes


title: Case C-287/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 June 2010 — Tankreederei I SA v Directeur de l’Administration des Contributions Directes

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 10 June 2010 — Tankreederei I SA v Directeur de l’Administration des Contributions Directes
   (Case C-287/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/44
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tankreederei I SA

      Defendant: Directeur de l’Administration des Contributions Directes

      Question referred

   Do Articles 49 EC and 56 EC preclude the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 152 bis of the amended Law of 4 December 1967 on income tax, insofar as, under those provisions, Luxembourg taxpayers are granted a tax credit for investments only if the investments are made in an establishment situated in the Grand-Duchy and are intended to remain there on a permanent basis, and only if they are physically used on Luxembourg territory?


title: Case T-301/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2013 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Application for authorisation to market the medicinal product Orphacol — Commission decision refusing to grant authorisation — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Directive 2001/83/EC — Well-established medicinal use — Exceptional circumstances)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2013 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
   (Case T-301/12) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Application for authorisation to market the medicinal product Orphacol - Commission decision refusing to grant authorisation - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Directive 2001/83/EC - Well-established medicinal use - Exceptional circumstances)
   2013/C 233/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, M. Šimerdová and L. Banciella, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents); French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F. Gloaguen and S. Menez, acting as Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and A. Posch, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, and subsequently by C. Murrel, and finally by L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, and subsequently by B. Majczyna, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3306 final of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 3306 final of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Laboratoires CTRS;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case C-22/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/30

         Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-22/06)
   (2006/C 60/57)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/105/EC of 15 October 2004 determining the models of official phytosanitary certificates or phytosanitary certificates for re-export accompanying plants, plant products or other objects from third countries and listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2004/105 expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 319, p. 9


title: Case T-392/08 R: Order of the Judge hearing the application for Interim measures of 19 November 2008 — AEPI v Commission (Interim measures — Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of author's rights — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/35

         Order of the Judge hearing the application for Interim measures of 19 November 2008 — AEPI v Commission
   (Case T-392/08 R)
   (Interim measures - Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of author's rights - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   (2009/C 32/68)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Xanthopoulos and T. Asprogerakas Grivas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for a stay of execution of Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-140/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-140/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2016/C 200/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of 320 026,23 euros, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-455/05: Action brought on  29 December 2005  — Componenta Oyj v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/42

         Action brought on 29 December 2005 — Componenta Oyj v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-455/05)
   (2006/C 48/80)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Savola, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 on State aid granted by Finland to Componenta as investment aid;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs with interest.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action concerns Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 finding that the Finnish State had granted Componenta State aid prohibited under Article 87 EC (aid No C 37/2004, ex NN 51/2004).
   The Commission considered that the aid had been granted in the context of an arrangement in two parts in which, first, Componenta sold its holding (50 %) in the property investment company Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy to the municipality of Karkkila, which already owned 50 % of that company, and, second, the property investment company repaid Componenta the shareholder's loan invested in that company. At the same time the municipality of Karkkila invested in the company a new additional loan in the same amount.
   According to the Commission, the State aid consists of both the purchase price and the repayment of the shareholder's loan.
   The applicant refers inter alia to the following points in support of its application:
   The Commission's decision is incorrect and unlawful in its entirety as regards both its grounds and its amount. The applicant claims that the Commission committed a breach of essential procedural requirements and an abuse of discretion, since it made a manifestly wrong assessment of the evidence put to it during the investigative procedure. The applicant also submits that the Commission's decision is contrary to the provisions of Article 87 EC on State aid. It further asserts that the conclusion of the decision is unreasonable with respect to it and in breach of the principle of proportionality laid down in the third paragraph of Article 5 EC.
   The applicant submits that the Commission applied the wrong procedure when assessing the value of the shares in the property investment company which were the subject of the transaction. The applicant claims, contrary to the Commission's view, that the value of the subject of the transaction was assessed in accordance with market conditions at the time of the transaction.
   As regards the shareholder's loan arrangement, the applicant submits that no economic advantage accrued to it as a result of the arrangement. In its view, the Commission wrongly assessed the nature and significance of the arrangement. In addition, the reasons stated in the Commission's decision concerning the shareholder's loan arrangement are in the applicant's view unclear and defective.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision conflicts with the practice it followed in other State aid cases and does not correspond to the principles set out in the Commission's communication to the Member States on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector. (1)

   As regards the investment clause in the sale contract, the applicant submits that the Commission assessed that clause and its significance incorrectly.

      (1)  OJ 1993 C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3.


title: Case C-21/02: Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 68/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16.3.2002
Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-17/02)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 2000/71/EC to adapt the
                                                                              measuring methods as laid down in Annexes I, II, III and
                         (2002/C 68/14)                                       IV to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council to technical progress as foreseen in
                                                                              Article 10 of that Directive (OJ 2000 L 287, p. 46) or in
                                                                              any event by not notifying the same to the Commission,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 january                    under Article 2 of that directive;
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by L. Pignatora and S. Rating, acting as Agents.            —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Declare that, by not having notified the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      the provisions of Commission Directive 99/64/EC                   Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
      amending Commission Directive 90/388/EEC, or not                  as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which
      having adopted the measures necessary to comply with              it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States
      the same, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by
      obligations under that directive;                                 directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
                                                                        1 January 2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which           Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission
it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by
directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
30 April 2000 without the Italian Republic having adopted                                        (Case C-22/02)
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                                (2002/C 68/16)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as
Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission                     Agents.
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-21/02)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 68/15)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                              the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
                                                                              availability of consumer information on fuel economy
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January                    passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or in any event by
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           not notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian
represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12
Agents.                                                                       of that directive;


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Definition of  putting into circulation  of the product — Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 February 2006
   in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (1)

   (Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Definition of ‘putting into circulation’ of the product - Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary)
   (2006/C 86/09)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-127/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 8 March 2004, in the proceedings between Declan O'Byrne and Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, formerly Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA, formerly Aventis Pasteur SA, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product is put into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed.

               2.

               When an action is brought against a company mistakenly considered to be the producer of a product whereas, in reality, it was manufactured by another company, it is as a rule for national law to determine the conditions in accordance with which one party may be substituted for another in the context of such an action. A national court examining the conditions governing such a substitution must, however, ensure that due regard is had to the personal scope of Directive 85/374, as established by Articles 1 and 3 thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-16/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-16/11) (1)

   2011/C 269/81
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Action brought on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG against the Council of the European Union (Case T-2/99)

text:
C 71/34              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
Action brought on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH &               since the beginning of this century, states that it has been
Co. KG against the Commission of the European                    recognised since 1 July 1993 as a Category A operator. It
                       Communities                               also states that, since 1995, it has had import contacts
                       (Case T-1/99)                             with banana producers in Costa Rica.
                      (1999/C 71/64)
                                                                 In its claim, it seeks compensation for the damage it
              (Language of the case: German)                     claims to have suffered through having to pay the cost of
                                                                 the export licences as a condition for importing bananas
                                                                 from Costa Rica. The judgment of the Court of Justice
An action against the Commission of the European                 cited above clearly shows, in its submission, that the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                annulled article infringed the general prohibition of
Instance of the European Communities on 4 January 1999           discrimination and Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty. The
by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, whose registered office is in          infringement of the principle of equality and the
Hamburg, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt,                discrimination against Category A operators was carried
Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.                                         out arbitrarily and for ulterior motives (financial aid).
                                                                 Those legal infringements caused damage to the applicant
The applicant claims that the Court should:                      arising in the following ways: It was obliged to fulfil
                                                                 acceptance obligations towards its producer in Costa Rica.
                                                                 In order to obtain import licences for those bananas and
1. require the Commission to pay the applicant damages           market them in the Community, it had to prove to the
    of DM 828 337.10 in respect of its loss suffered             competent German authority, when applying for the
    through having to buy export licences in Costa Rica in       import licences, that it held the corresponding export
    order to be able to use its rights as a Category A           licences. In order to acquire the licences, the applicant
    operator to import bananas into the Community and            incurred the expenditure referred to in its claims.
    market third-country bananas from Costa Rica in
    Germany;
                                                                 (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on
                                                                     additional rules for the application of Council Regulation
2. require the Commission to pay the applicant damages               (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for
    of DM 126 356.80 in respect of its loss suffered                 imports of bananas into the Community and amending
    through having to use external credits in order to               Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ L 49, 4.3.1995, p. 13).
    finance the expenses incurred in respect of the export       (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on
    licences;                                                        the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ L 47,
                                                                     25.2.1993, p. 1).
                                                                 (3) Delivered on 10 March 1998.
3. order interest of 4 % on the applicant's claims for
    damages, as from the commencement of proceedings;
4. order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              Action brought on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                      Co. KG against the Council of the European Union
In 1994, in the context of the GATT, the Community                                        (Case T-2/99)
concluded the so-called Framework Agreement on
bananas with Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and                                         (1999/C 71/65)
Venezuela.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By Regulation (EC) No 478/95 (1), made pursuant to
Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (2), the
necessary measures for implementing the Framework
Agreement were to be finally adopted.                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                 Communities on 4 January 1999 by T. Port GmbH & Co.
By the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases          KG, whose registered office is in Hamburg, represented by
C-364/95 and C-365/95 T. Port GmbH & Co. v                       Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1998] ECR I-1023 (3),
Regulation (EC) No 478/95 was declared invalid to the
extent to which Article 3(2) thereof imposed only on             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Category A and C operators the obligation to obtain
export licences for bananas from Colombia, Costa Rica or
Nicaragua.
                                                                 1. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
                                                                      loss which it suffered through having to buy or obtain
The applicant, which has been importing bananas from                  the use of import rights for bananas from Category A,
Latin America into Germany and marketing them there                   B or C operators in order to market third-country
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/35
    bananas imported from Costa Rica and Colombia in              such third countries as were members of the GATT in the
    Germany;                                                      amount of 236 000 tonnes in fulfilment of the
                                                                  most-favoured nation obligation. By the penal levy rule
                                                                  under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, the
2. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the          Council prevented the applicant from being able to make
    loss which it has suffered since 21 December 1996             use of the possibility of importing under Article 18 of
    through payment of customs duty on entry in respect           Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93. Although that rule came
    of the bananas imported from Costa Rica and                   into being on the recommendation of the Commission,
    Colombia and marketed by it in Germany;                       sole responsibility for legislative impropriety lay with the
                                                                  Council. As implementing legislator, the Commission was
3. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the          bound by the guidelines of the Council. Hence the sole
    loss which it has suffered since 21 January 1996              liability of the Council to pay compensation.
    through payment of interest as from commencement
    of proceedings of DM 324 294;                                 (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on
                                                                      the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ L 47,
                                                                      25.2.1993, p. 1).
4. order interest of 4 % on the applicant's claims for            (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    damages, as from the commencement of proceedings;                 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                      arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ
                                                                      L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 6).
5. order the Council to pay the costs of the dispute;             (3) Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 T. Port GmbH & Co. v
                                                                      Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1998] ECR I-1023.
In the alternative:
5. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
    above-mentioned losses suffered by it since
    8 September 1997;
                                                                  Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Banatrading GmbH
                                                                            against the Council of the European Union
Further in the alternative:                                                                 (Case T-3/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/66)
6. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
    above-mentioned losses suffered by it since
    25 September 1997.                                                           (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                  Communities on 4 January 1999 by Banatrading GmbH,
In support of its claims, the applicant states that it            whose registered office is in Hamburg, represented by
suffered loss through being obliged, on account of the            Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
penal levy under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EEC)
No 404/93 (1) in conjunction with the quota system of
Article 18 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
with Article 2 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (2),
to buy import licences for bananas from Costa Rica and
Colombia in order to be able to import bananas into the           1. order the Council to compensate the applicant for its
Community. However, as the Standing Appellate Body of                  loss suffered since 21 January 1996 through having to
the World Trade Organisation had determined on                         buy or obtain the use of import rights for bananas
25 September 1997, the applicant had the right to import               from Category A, B or C operators in order to market
bananas into the Community free of duty up to an annual                third-country bananas imported from Ecuador in
maximum of 236 000 tonnes.                                             Germany;
Costa Rica and Colombia were members of the GATT                  2. order the Council to compensate the applicant for its
before the market regulations came into force. Therefore,              loss suffered since 21 January 1996 through payment
in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 234 of               of customs duty on entry in respect of the bananas
the EC Treaty and the case-law of he Court of Justice (3),             imported from Ecuador and marketed by it in
Articles I.1 and XIII of the GATT, which was concluded                 Germany;
before the EEC treaty came into force, precluded the
application of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93.
                                                                  3. order the Council to compensate the applicant for its
                                                                       loss suffered since 21 January 1996 through not being
The infringements against Articles I.1 and XIII of the                 able to place the sums which it had to pay as a result
GATT, rendering the Council liable to pay compensation,                of the unlawful conduct of the Council on deposit at
lay in the failure to open a duty-free banana quota for                its bank;


title: Action brought on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-348/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 357/23
Action brought on 6 October 1997 by the Commission                      the European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
                                  Belgium                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                           ( Case C-347/97)                             of its Legal Service, 254 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
                                                                        Luxembourg.
                             ( 97/C 357/40 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 — declare that ( i ) by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of
on 6 October 1997 by the Commission of the European                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90 ('), goods, for which a
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal                           refund had been granted on their importation from the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                    Netherlands, to be introduced into the Federal
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         Republic of Germany without a levy corresponding to
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   the Community level of prices being raised and paid
                                                                             over to the Community and ( ii ) by abolishing all
                                                                            customs formalities for the movement of goods within
The Commission of the European Communities claims                            Germany and not adopting the measures required to
that the Court should :
                                                                             implement Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90, the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under the EC Treaty,
— declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
     measures necessary to comply with Article 6 of
     Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
     on batteries and accumulators containnig certain
     dangerous substances ('), the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfill its obligations under that Directive,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        The     Federal       Republic     of Germany has  infringed
                                                                        Community law in that:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — it has failed to levy duty on imported butter, and has
                                                                             not assessed a sum, which is lost to the Community
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                          budget, of DM 12 684 000 and paid that sum, with
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                          interest, to the Community,
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
achieve the results provided for therein before the expiry              — all customs formalities at the internal German border
of the period prescribed for doing so. The programmes                       were abolished before reunification on 3 October
referred to in Article 6 of the Directive should have been
                                                                             1990 and the measures required to implement
drawn up and communicated to the Commission by                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90 were not adopted .
17 September 1992 at the latest and it is neither disputed
or disputable that the Kingdom of Belgium did not take
all the national measures necessary in order to draw up                 (') OJ L 203 , 1 . 8 . 1990, p. 61 .
the programmes in question.
(') OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
                                                                        Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Action brought on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of                                              ( Case C-351/97)
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                                                ( 97/C 357/42 )
                               of Germany
                             Case C-348/97 )
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                             ( 97/C 357/41 )                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 13 October 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gerard
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Communities on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of                      Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.