title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-446/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): Fazenda Pública v Câmara Municipal do Porto (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons — Bodies governed by public law — Letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles)

text:
C 134/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            5.5.2001
Communities (Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for               1.   The letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles is an activity
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2815/98                          which, where it is carried on by a body governed by public law,
of 22 December 1998 concerning marketing standards for                          is carried on by that body as a public authority within the
olive oil (OJ 1998 L 349 p. 56) or, in the alternative, of                      meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth
Articles 1, 2(1) and the third subparagraph of 2(2), the third                  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 oil the
subparagraph of Article 3(2), and Article 3(3) of that regulation               harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann                   basis of assessment, if it is carried on under a special legal
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                 regime applicable to bodies governed by public law. That is the
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                      case where the pursuit of the activity involves the use of public
14 December 2000, in which it:                                                  powers.
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           2.   The third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                             77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that bodies governed
                                                                                by public law are not necessarily regarded as taxable persons in
                                                                                respect of the activities they engage in which are not negligible.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                       Only if those bodies engage in an activity or perform a
                                                                                transaction listed in Annex D to that directive may the criterion
                                                                                of the negligible scale of that activity or transaction be taken
                                                                                into account with the aim, if national law makes use of the
                                                                                option provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of
                                                                                Sixth Directive 77/388, of excluding them from being taxable
                                                                                persons for value added tax purposes where their activities are
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          negligible.
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  3.   The Finance Minister of a Member State may be authorised by
                                                                                a national law to define what is covered by, first, the concept of
                      of 14 December 2000                                       significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the
                                                                                second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388
in Case C-446/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                       and, second, the concept of negligible activities within the
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): Fazenda                         meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of that
           Pública v Câmara Municipal do Porto (1)                             directive, provided that his decisions of application may be
                                                                                reviewed by the national courts.
(Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons —
Bodies governed by public law — Letting of spaces for the                  4.   The fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive
                        parking of vehicles)                                    77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of an
                                                                                exemption for the letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles,
                          (2001/C 134/03)                                       which follows from Article 13(b) of that directive, does not
                                                                                prevent bodies governed by public law which carry out that
                                                                                activity from being treated as non-taxable persons for value
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             added tax in respect of it, where the conditions stated in the first
                                                                                and second subparagraphs are satisfied.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          5.   A national court is entitled, and in certain cases obliged, to
                                                                                refer to the Court, even of its own motion, a question concerning
In Case C-446/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                   the interpretation of Directive 77/388, if it considers that a
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal                    decision on the point by the Court is necessary for it to give
Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) for                     judgment, and once it has made that reference it is bound by
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                     the Court’s decision when it gives final judgment in the main
court between Fazenda Pública and Câmara Municipal do                          proceedings.
Porto, third party: Ministério Público — on the interpretation
of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)               (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
P. Jann, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 December 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-126/17: Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/47

         Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
   (Case T-126/17)
   (2017/C 121/68)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio IB Innovation (Bentivoglio, Italy) (represented by: A. Masutti and P. Manzini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the CONTAIN and ICARGO Grant Agreements when accepting the auditor’s report are incorrect in relation to all of the aspects highlighted in the action;

               —

               consequently, declare that the applicant’s interpretation and application of the CONTAIN and ICARGO Grant Agreements are correct;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action arises within the context of the issues connected with Case T-84/17, Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission. In that action, the applicant was contesting the decision of the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of 30 November 2016 (ref: Ares 2016-6711369), whereby the Commission found that Consorzio IB Innovation (‘IBI’) was under an obligation to repay EUR 294 925,43 in relation to Contract No 261679-CONTAIN and EUR 155 482,91 in relation to Contract No 288383-ICARGO, and to verify whether there were systemic errors in relation to a series of subsequent contracts.
   The applicant questions the Commission’s interpretation of the contracts in question.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an incorrect and contradictory interpretation of the terms ‘beneficiary’ and ‘third parties’, in breach of the Grant Agreements (GAs) and of the General Conditions (GCs) contained in Annex II to the General Agreements.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that a consortium is not a single entity, but rather a group of undertakings or a ‘collective entity’, and that it is not stated in the GAs or in the GCs contained in Annex II to the General Agreements that an undertaking included in the consortium is a third party in relation to a beneficiary of the GA concerned if the two persons have distinct legal personalities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs by both the auditor and the Commission as regards the law applicable to those contracts, and application of rules that do not form part of the contracts and are not legally binding.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that the auditor’s report, accepted by the Commission, is based on an interpretation of the GAs which is not substantiated either by the wording of those agreements or by the legal rules applicable to them. Rather, that report relies solely on an ‘instruction manual’ prepared by the Commission’s services. That document, drawn up unilaterally, cannot, it submits, take precedence over the rules agreed between the contracting parties.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and misapplication of Article II.15.2.c of Annex II to the CONTAIN and ICARGO GAs.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that the system for reporting the indirect costs relating to certain in-house IBI consultants who teleworked cannot be regarded as correct.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the request for review of contracts not subject to the audit is not based on any contractual provision.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that it is not at all clear which contractual clause of the ICARGO and CONTAIN Gas, including all annexes thereto, confers on the Commission the right to ask IBI for a structured and detailed audit of all the agreements in which IBI has participated within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme. The Commission, acting on the assumption that the errors found by the audit are systemic, is asking IBI to indicate whether the list is complete and, as appropriate, to supplement it with the missing projects and to verify whether such systemic errors are present in the financial reports relating to those projects.


title: Case F-56/10: Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Hecq v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/43

         Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-56/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing the full reimbursement of certain medical fees and expenses.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 20 October 2009 by the Brussels settlements office of the Sickness Insurance Fund, in the form of a breakdown of expenses No 171, refusing the applicant full reimbursement for four consultations with a general practitioner, on 17 February, 2 April, 23 April and 11 May 2009, two consultations with a specialist, on 6 April and 15 June 2009, and two purchases of medicines prescribed by the psychiatrist Vandenborre, on 22 June and 22 September 2009;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 13 April 2010 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint brought on 20 January 2010 against the decision of 20 October 2009;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-507/14: Action brought on 1 July 2014  — Vidmar and Others v European Union

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/46

         Action brought on 1 July 2014 — Vidmar and Others v European Union
   (Case T-507/14)
   2014/C 303/54
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicants: Vedran Vidmar (Zagreb, Croatia); Saša Čaldarević (Zagreb); Irena Glogovšek (Zagreb); Gordana Grancarić (Zagreb); Martina Grgec (Zagreb); Ines Grubišić (Vranjic, Croatia); Sunčica Horvat Peris (Karlovac, Croatia); Zlatko Ilak (Samobor, Croatia); Mirjana Jelavić (Virovitica, Croatia); Romuald Kantoci (Pregrada, Croatia); Svjetlana Klobučar (Zagreb); Ivan Kobaš (Županja, Croatia); Zlatko Kovačić (Sesvete, Croatia); Tihana Kušeta Šerić (Split, Croatia); Damir Lemaić (Zagreb); Željko Ljubičić (Solin, Croatia); Gordana Mahovac (Nova Gradiška, Croatia); Martina Majcen (Krapina, Croatia); Višnja Merdžo (Rijeka, Croatia); Tomislav Perić (Zagreb); Darko Radić (Zagreb); Damjan Saridžić (Zagreb); Darko Graf (Zagreb) (represented by: D. Graf, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               By means of an interim measure, order the European Union to compensate, on the basis of Article 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, all of the material damage suffered by all the applicants during the period from 1 January 2012 to the time at which the applicants began to exercise the functions of Croatian bailiffs in accordance with Article 36(1) and Annex VII(1) of the Act of Accession, legally binding on all 28 signatory States of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, including the Commission since 9 December 2011, as a result of the European Commission’s failure to fulfil its monitoring obligation under Article 36(1) and (2) of the Act of Accession, intended to ensure that the Republic of Croatia would establish the profession of bailiff from 1 January 2012, a commitment undertaken during the negotiations on the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union in the context of Chapter 23, ‘Justice and Fundamental Rights’, referred to in section 1 of Annex VII of the Act of Accession, ‘Specific commitments undertaken by the Republic of Croatia in the accession negotiations’, which states: ‘1. To continue to ensure effective implementation of its Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan’.

               —

               Until the interim measure sought in the first indent has become definitive, suspend the discussions on the total amount of material damage in respect of which compensation is sought from the European Union by the applicants in the present action.

               —

               After the interim measure sought in the first indent has become definitive, and after the oral hearing and the presentation of evidence relating to the determination of the total material damage in respect of which compensation is sought by the applicants in the present action, order the European Union to compensate each of the applicants for the material damaged suffered as a result of the Commission’s unlawful omission, referred to in the first subparagraph of the present action, namely, all of the actual loss (damnum emergens) and all of the loss of profit (lucrum cessans) suffered by the applicants during the period from 1 January 2012 to the date on which the Court makes the corresponding requests to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice of the Republic of Croatia, amounting to EUR 6 00  000 for each calendar year and for each defendant, together with late payment interest of 12 % per annum, to be calculated:

                           —

                           as regards the compensation for all of the actual loss, from 1 January 2012 until the date of actual payment;

                           —

                           as regards the compensation for all of the loss of profit suffered by the applicants during 2012, from 1 January 2013 until the date of actual payment;

                           —

                           as regards the compensation for all of the loss of profit suffered by the applicants during 2013, from 1 January 2014 until the date of actual payment;

                           —

                           as regards the compensation for all of the loss of profit suffered by the applicants during 2014, from 1 January 2015 until the date of actual payment;

               —

               After the interim measure sought in the first indent has become definitive, and after the oral hearing and the presentation of the appropriate evidence relating to the amount of that claim, order the European Commission to pay every one of the applicants the costs incurred in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on pleas essentially the same as those relied on in Case T-109/14 Škugor and Others v European Union. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 142, p. 38.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 July 1998 in Case T-232/95, Committee of European Copier Manufacturers (Cecom) v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duties on plain paper photocopiers - Review - Period of application of the anti-dumping duty - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 278/35
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                        of 8 July 1998                               8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, supported by FeÂdeÂration
                                                                     EuropeÂenne de la SanteÂ Animale (Fedesa), represented by
in Case T-232/95, Committee of European Copier                       Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Manufacturers (Cecom) v. Council of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                           Union (1)                                 Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt against
(Anti-dumping duties on plain paper photocopiers Ð                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Review Ð Period of application of the anti-dumping duty              Richard Wainwright and Fernando Castillo de la Torre) Ð
               Ð Manifest error of assessment)                       application for the annulment of the Commission decision
                                                                     of 22 May 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for the
                        (98/C 278/77)                                inclusion of somidobove, a recombinant bovine
                                                                     somatotrophin (BST), in Annex II to Council Regulation
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a
                                                                     Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
         published in the European Court Reports)                    foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1) Ð
                                                                     the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
In Case T-232/95, Committee of European Copier                       President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; A. Mair,
Manufacturers       (Cecom)      established     in   Cologne        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Germany), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker                   25 June 1998, in which it:
Schiller, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6
rue Michel Welter against Council of the European Union,             1. annuls the Commission decision of 22 May 1996
(Agents: Antonio Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.                    rejecting the request for the inclusion of somidobove,
Berrisch) Ð application for annulment of the second                      a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST), in
paragraph of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC)                        Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of
No 2380/95 of 2 October 1995 imposing a definitive anti-                 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure
dumping duty on imports of plain paper photocopiers                      for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
originating in Japan (OJ L 244, 12.10.1995, p. 1) Ð the                  veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal
Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                    origin;
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy and R. M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     2. orders the Commission to pay the costs, including
given a judgment on 8 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                         those of the intervener.
1. dismisses the action;
                                                                     (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 July 1998
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            in Case T-130/96, Gaetano Aquilino v. Council of the
                       of 25 June 1998                                                    European Union (1)
in Case T-120/96, Lilly Industries Ltd v. Commission of              (Officials Ð Sick leave Ð Article 59 of the Staff
                the European Communities (1)                         Regulations Ð Medical certificates Ð Not accepted Ð
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 Ð Request for inclusion                 Medical checks organised by the institution Ð Article 60
of a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list              of the Staff Regulations Ð Unauthorised absences Ð
of substances not subject to maximum residue limits Ð                            Recovered from the official's salary)
Rejection by the Commission Ð Application for                                                (98/C 278/79)
                          annulment)
                        (98/C 278/78)                                               (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     In Case T-130/96: Gaetano Aquilino, an official of the
In Case T-120/96, Lilly Industries Ltd, established in               Council of the European Union, residing at Mons
Basingstoke (United Kingdom) represented by Mr Denis                 (Belgium), represented by Nicholas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels
Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case C-385/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aachen): criminal proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres (Approximation of laws - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 79/112/EEC - Consumer protection - Language)

text:
C 299/4              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.9.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    of the supplier of the services over a given period of
                                                                       time.
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 14 July 1998                            (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
                                                                  (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
in Case C-172/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division): The Commissioners of Customs and
        Excise v. First National Bank of Chicago (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive Ð Scope Ð Foreign exchange
                         transactions)                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        (98/C 299/05)
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
                                                                  in Case C-385/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                  the Amtsgericht Aachen): criminal proceedings against
               (Language of the case: English)                                       Hermann Josef Goerres (1)
                                                                  (Approximation of laws Ð Labelling and presentation of
                                                                  foodstuffs Ð Directive 79/112/EEC Ð Consumer
                                                                                protection Ð Language)
In Case C-172/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice of                                         (98/C 299/06)
England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between The Commissioners of Customs and Excise                             (Language of the case: German)
and First National Bank of Chicago Ð on the
interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common                           published in the European Court Reports)
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2)
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de          In Case C-385/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; C. O.         of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht Aachen for a
Lenz, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on         court against Hermann Josef Goerres, on the
14 July 1998 in which it ruled:                                   interpretation of Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/
                                                                  EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
                                                                  laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                  presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the
1. transactions between parties for the purchase by one           ultimate consumer (2) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
    party of an agreed amount in one currency against the         composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
    sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in          Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-
    another currency, both such amounts being deliverable         P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
    on the same value date, and in respect of which               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
    transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally,         given a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
    electronically or in writing) the currencies involved,
    the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and
    sold, which party will purchase which currency and            1. Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
    the value date, constitute supplies of services effected           18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws
    for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of            of the Member States relating to the labelling,
    the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May                 presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
    1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                the ultimate consumer does not preclude national
    States relating to turnover taxes Ð common system of               legislation which, as regards language requirements,
    value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;                      prescribes the use of a specific language for the
                                                                       labelling of foodstuffs but which also permits, as an
                                                                       alternative, the use of another language easily
                                                                       understood by purchasers;
2. Article 11A(1)(a) of the sixth Directive must be
    construed as meaning that, in foreign exchange                2. all the compulsory particulars specified in Directive
    transactions in which no fees or commission are                    79/112/EEC must appear on the labelling either in a
    calculated with regard to certain specific transactions,           language easily understood by consumers of the State
    the taxable amount is the net result of the transactions           or the region in question, or by means of other
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/5
     measures such as designs, symbols or pictograms. The                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     placing in the shop of a supplementary sign adjacent
     to the product in question is not sufficient to ensure                                  (Fifth Chamber)
     that the ultimate consumer is informed and protected.
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
(1) OJ C 26, 25.1.1997.                                              in Case C-125/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(2) OJ L 33, 8.12.1979, p. 1.                                        the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Alkmaar): A. G. R.
                                                                     Regeling v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
                                                                                Metaalnijverheid (1)
                                                                     (Social policy Ð Directive 80/987/EEC Ð Guarantee
                                                                         institutions' obligation to pay Ð Outstanding claims)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           (98/C 299/08)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 14 July 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case C-389/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Aher-Waggon GmbH v.
               Federal Republic of Germany (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect Ð Directives on noise
emissions from aircraft Ð Stricter domestic limits Ð                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Barrier to the importation of an aircraft Ð Environmental                       published in the European Court Reports)
                           protection)
                         (98/C 299/07)
                                                                     In Case C-125/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
               (Language of the case: German)                        of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te
                                                                     Alkmaar (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between A. G. R.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Regeling and Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Metaalnijverheid, on the interpretation of Article 4 of
                                                                     Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
In Case C-389/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           to the protection of employees in the event of the
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht                   insolvency of their employer (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
(Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
the proceedings pending before that court between Aher-              Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-
Waggon GmbH and the Federal Republic of Germany, on                  P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; Advocate General: G.
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty Ð the              Cosmas; Administrator, L. Hewlett, for the Registrar, has
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      given a judgment on 14 July 1998, the operative part of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.            which is as follows.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 July 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 On a proper construction of Article 4(2) of Council
                                                                     Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national               to the protection of employees in the event of the
legislation which makes the first registration in national           insolvency of their employer, where a worker has,
territory of aircraft previously registered in another               simultaneously, claims against his employer in respect of
Member State conditional upon compliance with stricter               periods of employment before the reference period laid
noise standards than those laid down by Council Directive            down in that provision and claims relating to the reference
80/51/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the limitation of                   period itself, payments of wages made by the employer
noise emissions from subsonic aircraft, as amended by                during the latter period must be set in priority against
Council Directive 83/206/EEC of 21 April 1983, while                 earlier claims.
exempting from those standards aircraft which obtained
registration in national territory before that Directive was
implemented.                                                         (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 283, 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) OJ C 26, 8.2.1997.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 December 1997 in Case C-8/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Tours): Locamion SA v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre-et-Loire (Directive 69/335/EEC - Regional charge on vehicle registration certificates)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/5
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.1996.
                                                                                of 11 December 1997
                                                                     in Case C-8/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Tours): Locamion SA
                                                                         v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre-et-Loire (1)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Regional charge on vehicle
                       (Third Chamber)                                                  registration certificates)
                     of 9 December 1997                                                       (98/C 55/08)
in Case C-143/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Leonhard Knubben Speditions
            GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (1)                                       (Language of the case: French)
(Common Customs Tariff Ð Crushed' peppers within the
meaning of subheading 0904 20 90 of the Combined
                        Nomenclature)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         (98/C 55/07)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     In Case C-8/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
          published in the European Court Reports)                   (Regional Court), Tours (France), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Locamion SA and Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre-
In Case C-143/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           et-Loire Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal                   335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
Finance Court) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the            raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II),
proceedings pending before that court between Leonhard               p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of
Knubben Speditions GmbH and Hauptzollamt Mannheim                    9 April 1973 varying the field of application of the
Ð on the interpretation of subheading 0904 20 of the                 reduced rate of capital duty provided for in respect of
Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from                 certain     company       reconstruction      operations     by
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of                            Article 7(1)(b) of the directive concerning indirect taxes on
21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Council                        the raising of capital (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13), by
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical            Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ                    common rates of capital duty (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973,
L 298, 31.10.1988, p. 1) and from Commission                         p. 15), by Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November
Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989                         1974 amending Article 5(2) of Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ
amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 (OJ L 282,                 L 303, 13.11.1974, p. 9), and by Council Directive 85/
2.10.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed               303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho             (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth
de Almeida (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; A.             Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                  President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Cosmas,
9 December 1997, in which it has ruled:                              Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Subheading 0904 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, in                  11 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs                   Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                     1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
Tariff and from Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/
                                                                     amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973
89 of 2 August 1989 amending Annex I to Regulation
                                                                     varying the field of application of the reduced rate of
(EEC) No 2658/87, must be construed as meaning that
                                                                     capital duty provided for in respect of certain company
the expression sonst zerkleinert' (otherwise crushed')
                                                                     reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the
does not cover a product cut into pieces measuring
                                                                     directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
between 4 and 8 mm.
                                                                     capital, by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973
                                                                     fixing common rates of capital duty, by Council Directive
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                             74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5(2)
                                                                     of Directive 69/335/EEC, and by Council Directive 85/
                                                                     303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
EEC, must be interpreted as not precluding a tax such as                  raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive
the regional charge on vehicle registration certificates.                 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the field of
                                                                          application of the reduced rate of capital duty
                                                                          provided for in respect of certain company
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                                                                          reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the
                                                                          Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                          capital, by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April
                                                                          1973 fixing common rates of capital duty, by Council
                                                                          Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending
                                                                          Article 5(2) of Directive 69/335/EEC, and by Council
                                                                          Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Directive 69/335/EEC, does not apply to a national
                                                                          tax on any appreciation in the value of immovable
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          property, determined at the time when such property
                    of 11 December 1997                                   was contributed to a capital company. However,
                                                                          Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, does apply to the
in Case C-42/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  registration charge, the mortgage registration fee and
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia): SocietaÁ                       the Land Register fee.
Immobiliare SIF SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                         dello Stato (1)
                                                                     2. On a proper construction, Article 12 of Directive 69/
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Contribution of immovable                         335/EEC, as amended, authorises Member States,
                           property)                                      notwithstanding the prohibition laid down in
                         (98/C 55/09)                                     Article 10 thereof, to charge, in connection with an
                                                                          increase in the capital of a capital company brought
                                                                          about by the contribution of immovable property,
                                                                          taxes such as the registration charge, the mortgage
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          registration fee and the Land Register fee, provided
                                                                          that such taxes do not exceed those applicable to like
                                                                          transactions in the Member State charging them.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
In Case C-42/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale (Civil
and Criminal District Court), Venice (Italy), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between SocietaÁ Immobiliare SIF SpA and                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato Ð on the                                          (Fifth Chamber)
interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital                                 of 11 December 1997
(OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as                  in    Case C-83/97: Commission of the European
amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973                      Community v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
varying the field of application of the reduced rate of
capital duty provided for in respect of certain company              (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the                                      Directive 92/43/EEC)
Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                                (98/C 55/10)
capital (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13), by Council Directive
73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates of capital
duty (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15), by Council Directive                              (Language of the case: German)
74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5(2)
of Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ L 303, 3.11.1974, p. 9), and
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
amending Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985,
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F.
Mancini and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-                  In Case C-83/97: Commission of the European
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has           Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Federal
given a judgment on 11 December 1997, in which it has                Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
ruled:                                                               Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                     adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
1. On a proper construction, Council Directive 69/335/               Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
     EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and


title: Case T-371/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Decision to appoint the appellant’s superior — Internal competition — Staff Committee elections — Decision not to promote the appellant in 2006 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-371/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Decision to appoint the appellant’s superior - Internal competition - Staff Committee elections - Decision not to promote the appellant in 2006 - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
   2009/C 233/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

      Other party: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and J. Vermer, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2009] ECR I-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301 of 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-357/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 31 July 2007 — The Queen on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs and Royal Mail Group Ltd

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 31 July 2007 — The Queen on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs and Royal Mail Group Ltd
   (Case C-357/07)
   (2007/C 247/15)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TNT Post UK Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Interested Party: Royal Mail Group Ltd
   Questions referred

               1.

                           a)

                           How is the expression ‘the public postal services’ in Article 13A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) (now Article 132(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112 (2)) to be interpreted?

                           b)

                           Is the interpretation of that expression affected by the fact that postal services in a Member State have been liberalised, there are no reserved services within the meaning of Council Directive 97/67/EC (3), as amended, and there is one designated universal service provider that has been notified to the Commission pursuant to that Directive (such as Royal Mail in the United Kingdom)?

                           c)

                           in the circumstances of the present case (which are as set out in b) above) does that expression include

                                       (i)

                                       only the sole designated universal services provider (such as Royal Mail in the United Kingdom) or

                                       (ii)

                                       also a private postal operator (such as TNT Post)?

               2.

               In the circumstances of the present case, is Article 13A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (now Article 132(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112) to be interpreted as requiring or permitting a Member State to exempt all postal services provided by ‘the public postal services’?

               3.

               If Member States are required or permitted to exempt some, but not all, of the services provided by ‘the public postal services’, by reference to which criteria are those services, by reference to which criteria are those services to be identified?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).

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

      (3)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ L 15, p. 14).


title: Case T-377/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Ezz v Council

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/27

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Ezz v Council
   (Case T-377/14)
   2014/C 245/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.


title: Cases C-321/04, C-322/04, C-323/04, C-324/04, C-325/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Lyon by judgments of 24 February 2004, in the following cases SAS Distribution Casino France, as successor to Casino France, against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), Casino France, as successor to SA Imquef, in turn successor to SA Judis, against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), SA Dechrist Holding against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), SA Komogo against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), SARL Tout pour la maison against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/4

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Lyon by judgments of 24 February 2004, in the following cases SAS Distribution Casino France, as successor to Casino France, against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), Casino France, as successor to SA Imquef, in turn successor to SA Judis, against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), SA Dechrist Holding against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), SA Komogo against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales), SARL Tout pour la maison against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales)
   (Cases C-321/04, C-322/04, C-323/04, C-324/04, C-325/04)
   (2004/C 239/07)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgments of the Cour d'Appel de Lyon (Lyons Court of Appeal) given on 24 February 2004 in the following cases:
   SAS Distribution Casino France, as successor to Casino France, against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales) (National Independent Old-Age Insurance Fund for Self-Employed Persons in Manufacturing and Trading Occupations) (Case C-321/04)
   Casino France, as successor to SA Imquef, in turn successor to SA Judis, against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales) (National Independent Old-Age Insurance Fund for Self-Employed Persons in Manufacturing and Trading Occupations) (Case C-322/04)
   SA Dechrist Holding against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales) (National Independent Old-Age Insurance Fund for Self-Employed Persons in Manufacturing and Trading Occupations) (Case C-323/04)
   SA Komogo against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales) (National Independent Old-Age Insurance Fund for Self-Employed Persons in Manufacturing and Trading Occupations) (Case C-324/04)
   SARL Tout pour la maison against Organic de recouvrement (Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales) (National Independent Old-Age Insurance Fund for Self-Employed Persons in Manufacturing and Trading Occupations) (Case C-325/04), received at the Court Registry on 27 July 2004.
   The Cour d'Appel de Lyon asks the Court of Justice to decide whether a mutual assistance charge for the benefit of traders and craftsmen collected from the appellants is State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 92).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 20 October 1997 in the case of Anton Feyrer v. Landkreis Rottal-Inn (also party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern as representative of the public interest) (Case C-374/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97                                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 387/ 11
          regarded as unlawful solely as regards that granted               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
          on or after 1 July 1990 .                                         Commerce ( Second Chamber), Tournai, by judgment of
                                                                            that court of 30 October 1997 in the case of General
(') Concerning aid granted to the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region in                         Motors Corporation v. Yplon SA
       favour of road hauliers of that region.                                                     ( Case C-375/97 )
( 2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1979 ( II ), p. 360 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/17 )
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                            Commerce ( Second Chamber), Tournai, of 30 October
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerische                        1997, received at the Court Registry on 3 November
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of                            1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of General
20 October 1997 in the case of Anton Feyrer v. Landkreis                    Motors Corporation v. Yplon SA on the following
Rottal-Inn ( also party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern as                       question:
                 representative of the public interest )
                              Case C-374/97                                 On reading Article 13 A ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Uniform Benelux
                              ( 97/C 387/ 16 )                              Law introduced pursuant to the amending protocol in
                                                                            force since 1 January 1996, what is the proper
                                                                            construction of the term 'repute of the trade mark ' and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      may it also be said that such 'repute' applies throughout
European Communities by order of the Bayerische                             the Benelux countries or to part thereof?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof ( Bavarian Administrative Court )
of 20 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
3 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Anton Feyrer v. Landkreis Rottal-Inn, represented by the
Landrat ( also party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern as
representative of the public interest) on the following                     Reference      for a preliminary ruling by the
questions:                                                                  Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam by order of that
                                                                            court of 30 October 1997 in the criminal proceedings
 1 . Can an individual oppose the collection of fees higher                                against Florus Ariel Wijsenbeek
        than the standard amounts listed in point 1 of the                                          ( Case C-378/97 )
        annex relating to Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 85/                                    ( 97/C 387/ 18 )
        73/EEC (') as amended by Council Directive 93/ 118/
        EC ( 2 ) where the Member State has not transposed
        Directive 93/ 118/EC into national law within the
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        prescribed period ?                                                 European Communities by an order of the
                                                                            Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ) Rotterdam of
 2 . Can a Member State collect fees higher than the                        30 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
        standard amounts in reliance in point 4 ( b ) of the                5 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
        annex relating to Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 85/          proceedings against Florus Ariel Wijsenbeek on the
        73/EEC as amended by Directive 93/ 118/EC provided                  following questions :
        that the fees levied do not exceed the actual costs, no
        further conditions being imposed ?                                  Are the second paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            which provides that the internal market is to comprise an
                                                                            area without internal frontiers in which the free movement
 3 . Is the authorization given to Member States under
        Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC as                   of persons is ensured, and Article 8a of the EC Treaty,
        amended by Directive 93/ 118/EEC to collect an                      which confers on all citizens of the Union the right to
        amount exceeding the Community fees dependent on                    move and reside freely within the territory of the Member
        the total fee collected in the Member State as a whole               States, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
        and the actual inspection costs in the Member State as               of a Member State imposing an obligation, accompanied
        a whole or is it sufficient, when the Member State has               by criminal penalties for failure to comply, on persons
        delegated authorization to collect the fees to the local             ( whether or not citizens of the European Union ) to present
         authorities, that the total fee collected by the local              a passport on entry into a Member State whenever that
         authority is not greater than the actual inspection                 person enters the Member State through the national
        costs of that authority ?                                            airport coming from another Member State ?
 (') OJ L 32, 5 . 2 . 1985 , p . 14 .                                        Does any other provision of Community law preclude
 ( 2 ) OJ L 340 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 15 .                                  such an obligation ?


title: Case C-326/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that active substance — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Manifest error of appraisal)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-326/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that active substance - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Manifest error of appraisal)
   (2007/C 235/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA, (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and J. Sabater Marotias, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/03 Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/03 Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission;

               2)

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing this active substance;

               3)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings at first instance, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-415/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore (Italy), lodged on 10 September 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore (Italy), lodged on 10 September 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI
   (Case C-415/07)
   (2007/C 283/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Il Tribunale ordinario di Nocera Inferiore
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. SpA

      Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), SCCI
   Question referred
   Is the Community law laid down in the Guidelines on aid to employment, the Guidelines on national regional aid and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 5 December 2002 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether there has been an increase in employment, a comparison must be made between the average AWU [annual working units] for the year preceding the recruitment of new workers and the average AWU for the year following their recruitment, or are those provisions to be interpreted instead as meaning that a comparison must — or may — be made between the average AWU for the year preceding the recruitment of new workers and the exact number of workers present on the specific day on which those new workers were recruited?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3.


title: Case T-293/11: Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/24

         Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission
   (Case T-293/11)
   2011/C 238/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Holcim AG (Hamburg, Germany) and Holcim Ltd (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: P Niggemann and K Gaβner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 30 March 2011, adopted in proceedings under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: there was no valid notification of the information decision
               Before issuing the information decision the defendant was provided with powers of attorney in respect of Holcim AG (the first applicant) and statements from all the Holcim group companies concerned agreeing to use English as the language of the case. However, the information decision was addressed to Holcim Ltd (the second applicant) and ‘served on’ Holcim AG (the first applicant), even though there was no power of representation to that effect. The working language of Holcim Ltd and of the vast majority of the other companies concerned of the Holcim group is English, with the result that it was not possible to take sufficient note of the decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law: the time limit within which to reply was too short and the Commission refused to extend that time limit
               The information decision concerns a vast amount of detailed information on 15 group companies (such as transaction data, imports and exports, production data, market shares etc) over a period of 10 years. On the basis of the draft decision, thus at an early stage, the applicants gave the Commission detailed reasons why the 12-week time limit to provide the requested information was clearly too short. Given that the proceedings had already been underway for two and a half years and the applicants had already cooperated extensively with the Commission it was appropriate to extend the time limit. Moreover, the Commission itself delayed the data collection and made it more difficult by drafting the information decision in German, in spite of the applicants' consent to continue using English as the language of the case, thereby making it impossible for two thirds of the Holcim group companies to work with it.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the Commission required Holcim to provide data and information which the latter did not have at its disposal
               To a large extent, the information decision requires data and information from the applicants which they do not have at their disposal in the required form. Moreover, data is required which the applicants could only have produced at an exorbitant cost in terms of staff and time as a result of a change in their IT system. Such efforts do not fall within the requirement to produce information in accordance with the decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the duty to give reasons
               In the information decision, sufficient grounds are neither given for the investigation nor the choice of means of investigation, that it to say one which prescribes a penalty.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the requirement that the means be necessary
               Thus far the applicants have complied extensively and in full with every request for information, with the result that there was no justification for adopting an information decision prescribing a penalty instead of the less drastic option of informal requests for information.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of the principle of precision
               In several respects, the information decision is not sufficiently clear in relation to the requested data and information, the burden of which is borne exclusively by the applicants.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of the general principle of proportionality
               Given that the proceedings have been under way for two and a half years the ambiguous and vague nature of the data and information collection on such a scale is disproportionate, particularly since the Commission has requested comparable information on various occasions in different formats. The Commission's refusal to extend the time limit is grossly disproportionate given the facts and that the proceedings have already been underway for two and a half years.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law: the defendant did not have the authority to ask questions relating to Holcim (Česko) a.s. in respect of the period prior to the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union
               Requesting data for the period prior to a country's accession to the European Union is not admissible.


title: Case C-300/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 2(1) — Directive 90/232/EEC — Article 1 — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Civil liability of the insured person — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Limitation of the right to compensation)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
   (Case C-300/10) (1)

   (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 2(1) - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Civil liability of the insured person - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Limitation of the right to compensation)
   2012/C 399/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida

      Defendants: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition, 1972 (II), p. 360), Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) and Articles 1 and 1a of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — Collision of two vehicles not attributable to the drivers — Passenger in one of the vehicles having contributed to the occurrence of his own injuries — Liability for risk — National provisions by virtue of which it is possible to refuse or to limit the right to compensation of injured passengers who have contributed to the occurrence of the injury or loss

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national provisions which, where two motor vehicles collide giving rise to personal injury to the passenger in one of the vehicles and the event is not attributable to the fault of the drivers of those vehicles, allows the civil liability of the insured persons to be limited or excluded.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-562/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Federcaccia Toscana and Others v Commission

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/53

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Federcaccia Toscana and Others v Commission
   (Case T-562/15)
   (2015/C 381/64)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Federcaccia Toscana (Florence, Italy), Moreno Periccioli (Volterra, Italy), Arcicaccia Toscana (Florence, Italy), Fabio Lupi (Cascina, Italy), Associazione dei Migratoristi Italiani per la conservazione dell’ambiente naturale (ANUU) — TOSCANA (Cerreto Guidi, Italy), Franco Bindi (Cerreto Guidi, Italy) (represented by: A. Bruni, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the European Commission has intentionally or negligently failed to examine the preliminary Key Concepts data acquired from Italy relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares as compared with the same data acquired from France thereby evading moreover the obligation to produce resulting transnational data relating to those three migratory species in geographically and climatically homogenous areas;

               —

               declare that the European Commission has intentionally or negligently failed to update the Italian Key Concepts data relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares, adjusting and aligning them to the French data found to be correct and legitimate, and recognising that the beginning of the pre-mating migration of those three species takes place in the second period of ten days in February also in Italy;

               —

               declare that the European Commission, in the absence of valid and correct conditions, sought the introduction in Italy, and in particular in Tuscany, of unjustified limitations on the hunting of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares as compared to that consented to in France and in particular in Corsica, bringing forward to 20 January in Tuscany the end of the hunt for those three migrating species;

               —

               declare unlawful, on the grounds of unequal treatment between Member States and/or Regions of the Member States and also lack of valid conditions, the procedure EU PILOT 6955/14/ENVI brought by the European Commission exclusively against the Italian State since it did not bring an identical and concurrent action against France and did not carry out any preliminary investigation aimed at acquiring corresponding elements from which it can be concluded that the effective beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares is to be deferred by one month (20 February) in Corsica compared to the beginning of the same pre-mating migration in Tuscany (20 January);

               —

               declare unlawful the European Commission’s initial and continued inaction in respect of the applicants’ warning letter of 29 May 2015 by which the applicants assert and declare at the same time that the European Commission’s response in the letter No ENV.D.2/MC-GM/vf/ARES (2015) 3758354 of 9 September 2015 was elusive;

               —

               direct the European Commission to adjust the Italian Key Concepts data relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares in line with the Key Concepts data from France, thereby recognising that it takes place in the second period of ten days in February;

               —

               in any event, direct the European Commission to adjust the Italian Key Concepts data relating to the beginning of the pre-mating migration in Tuscany of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares in line with the French Key Concepts data relating to Corsica, recognising that it takes place in the second period of ten days in February;

               —

               order the European Commission, in respect of its omissive and inadequate action, to pay compensation for the harm suffered and to be suffered by the applicant hunting associations, also at the Court’s discretion, in so far as may be held to be fair.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action seeks principally a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to take action following the letter of 29 May 2015 by which the applicant associations put the Commission on notice, requesting it to update the Italian Key Concepts and consequently to amend the date of the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares, recognising that it begins in the second period of ten days in February.
   In support of their action, the applicants claim that the Key Concepts data relating to Italy is invalid, unreliable and subjective in so far as it relates to the beginning of the pre-mating migration of woodcocks, song thrushes and fieldfares which show evident inconsistencies as compared with the data relating to other Member States or Regions of the Member States which are characterised by uniform geographic, environmental and climatic conditions and which have the same catchment and wintering area consisting of the Mediterranean basin.

               —

               The applicants claim that the European Commission breached its obligation to update and adjust periodically the Key Concepts data, and take action to ensure the uniform application of the Treaties throughout all the European Union, without discrimination between Member States.

               —

               Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission’s wrongful conduct, characterised as omissive and inadequate, is also in breach of Article 17(1) TEU; Articles 192 and 291 TFEU; Articles 7, 10 and 16 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and recital 4 of the preamble thereto; Paragraph 2.5.13 of the Guide to sustainable hunting under the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC (and Directive 2009/14/EC) on the conservation of wild birds; Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and Council of 16 February 2011; Articles 4(2) and 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 18 TFEU.


title: Case C-279/00: Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/11
2.    The contested decision should be annulled because the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      facts were assessed incorrectly. The assessments contained
      in the contested decision are manifestly misconceived:
                                                                        (a)   declare that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the
                                                                              provision of temporary labour which are established in
      (i)   with regard to Article 32(2) of Law 2008/92; and                  other Member States to:
      (ii) with regard to Article 5 of law 2237/94.
                                                                              —     maintain their registered office or a branch office on
                                                                                Italian territory; and
3.    The contested decision infringed Article 87(1) since, even              —     to deposit a guarantee amounting to ITL 700 million
      if the provisions in question were to be regarded as State                    with a credit institution having its registered office
      aid, they did not distort competition or affect trade.                        or a branch on Italian territory,
4.    The statement of grounds in the contested decision is                         the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its
      general and vague since it does not explain why the                           obligations under Articles 59 and 73b of the EC
      relevant provisions of Law 2237/94, Law 2198/94 and                           Treaty (now Articles 49 and 56 EC);
      Order 1620/89 of the Governor of the Bank of Greece
      would be unacceptable for a private investor.
                                                                        (b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
5.    The statement of grounds in the contested decision is
      inadequate because the refund of aid granted unlawfully
      is not a mandatory requirement under Article 88(2) and
      the Commission does not prove that the refund is                  Pleas in law and main arguments
      necessary in order to restore market conditions.
6.    The contested decision which seeks the refund of all the          A national rule requiring an undertaking engaged in the
      ‘aid’ with interest infringes the principle of pro-               provision of labour to maintain its registered office or a branch
      portionality and the principle of legal certainty.                in Italy, thereby making it totally impossible for undertakings
                                                                        established in other Member States to render such services, is
7.    Under the case-law, it is not possible for aid granted in         manifestly contrary to the principle of freedom to provide
      compliance with the procedure under Article 88 EC to be           services within the Community, as enshrined in Article 59 of
      recovered, in particular after seven years have elapsed.          the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).
8.    The decision is absolutely incapable of being duly
                                                                        In the Commission’s view, the obligation to deposit a sum by
      implemented.
                                                                        way of guarantee with a bank established in Italy, even where
                                                                        that financial guarantee or an equivalent guarantee is required
                                                                        under the legislation of the Member State in which the
                                                                        undertaking wishing to avail itself of its freedom to provide
                                                                        services is established, constitutes a restriction falling within
                                                                        the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 59 of the
                                                                        Treaty. That rule also infringes the principle of the free
                                                                        movement of capital (Article 56 EC, formerly Article 73b of
                                                                        the EC Treaty), as expressed in the judgment in Svensson (1), in
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Commission of                     which the Court of Justice assessed the compatibility with
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  Community law of a Luxembourg regulation rendering the
                                                                        grant of an interest-rate subsidy on loans for the construction,
                                                                        acquisition or improvement of housing subject to the con-
                         (Case C-279/00)                                dition that such loans were to be taken out from banks
                                                                        established in Luxembourg.
                        (2000/C 259/19)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           (1) Judgment of 14.11.1995 in Case C-484/93 Svensson and Gustavs-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July                     son [1995] ECR I-3955.
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Maria
Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.