title: Case C-49/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 5 February 2007 — Motosikletistiki Omospondia Ellados (MOT.O.E) v Elliniko Dimosio

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 5 February 2007 — Motosikletistiki Omospondia Ellados (MOT.O.E) v Elliniko Dimosio
   (Case C-49/07)
   (2007/C 95/27)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Diikitiko Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Motosikletistiki Omospondia Ellados (MOT.O.E)

      Respondent: Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can Articles 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty be interpreted so as also to include within their scope the activity of a legal person which has the status of national representative of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (the International Motorcycling Federation) and engages in economic activity as described above by entering into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, in the context of the organisation of motor sport events by it?

               2.

               Should the answer be in the affirmative, is Article 49 of Law 2696/1999, which, in relation to issue by the competent national public authority (in the present case, the Ministry for Public Order) of permission to organise a motor-vehicle competition, gives the foregoing legal person the power to provide a concurring opinion as to the holding of the competition without that power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review, compatible with those provisions of the Treaty?


title: Case C-540/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
21.2.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 47/21
(d) discriminatory, and/or                                                         person on the purchase of goods and services intended
                                                                                for both activities, is it necessary to include in the
                                                                                denominator of the fraction for calculation not only the
(e)    contrary to the fundamental freedom to pursue a trade or                    annual turnover but also the value of work in progress at
       business?                                                                   the end of each year which has not yet been put on the
                                                                                market and for which no value, total or partial, has been
                                                                                received?
(1) fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions
    for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
    Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where             —     Or to the effect that only turnover is covered?
    catch limitations are required (OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 12).
(2) amending Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 fixing for 2003 the
    fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish
    stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters
    and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    required (OJ L 97, 15.04.2003, p. 11).                                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
(3) on the allocation of additional days absent from port to Member              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    States in accordance with Annex XVII of Council Regulation                   basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).
    (EC) No 2341/2002 (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under              (2) CIVA (Value Added Tax Code).
    document number C(2003) 762) (OJ L 71, 15.03.2003, p. 28).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal, by order of that Court                    Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the European
of 26 November 2003 in the case of António Jorge Lda                            Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                      against Fazenda Pública
                           (Case C-536/03)                                                             (Case C-540/03)
                            (2004/C 47/34)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/35)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, Portugal, of 26 November 2003, received at                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
the Court Registry on 22 December 2003, for a preliminary                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ruling in the case of António Jorge Lda against Fazenda Pública              ties on 22 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
on the following questions:                                                  represented by H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, acting as
                                                                             Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—      In what sense must Article 19 of the Sixth Council
       Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) be inter-
       preted? (1)
                                                                             The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
—      Is Article 23 (4) of the CIVA (2) compatible with the
       abovementioned provision, when interpreted to the effect              —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the last subparagraph
       that, where the taxable person is an undertaking engaged                    of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Council
       in the real-estate business, carrying out works in two                      Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right
       sectors of activity, one being the construction of buildings                to family reunification (1);
       for sale (exempt from VAT) and the other contract work
       (subject to VAT), in order to calculate the pro rata or
       percentage deduction of VAT borne by that taxable                     —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/22                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.     Should Article 49 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                precluding the introduction, by a national or local
                                                                                authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communi-
                                                                                cations infrastructures used to carry on activities covered
This action for annulment is aimed at defending fundamental                     by licences and authorisations?
rights, especially the rights of minors, in the Community legal
order. The Directive, whilst providing for valid rules for
codifying the law governing family reunification for third-              2.     Given that Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/
country nationals, nevertheless contains a number of pro-                       EEC of 28 June 1990 (1), as inserted by Commission
visions which are unacceptable having regard to fundamental                     Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 (2) amending
rights, including the right to family life and the right not to be              Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal
discriminated against, compliance with which must be ensured                    communications, refers to the lifting of ‘all restrictions’,
in the legal order of the European Union pursuant to Article 6                  does that article preclude the introduction, by a national
of the Treaty on European Union.                                                or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal
                                                                                communications infrastructures used to carry on activities
                                                                                covered by licences and authorisations?
The right to family life as recognised by Article 8 of the
1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and
interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human               (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
Rights can be restricted only for certain reasons and each case              tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192,
calls for a balancing of the interests of the third-country                  24.7.1990, p. 10).
nationals concerned and those of the host State. Derogations             (2) Commission Directive 96/2/EEC of 16 January 1996 amending
from the right to family reunification which are expressly                   Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal com-
authorised by the aforementioned provisions of the directive                 munications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59).
go beyond the permitted restrictions and violate the fundamen-
tal right to family life and the right not to be discriminated
against as guaranteed by the ECHR and as they result from the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States of the
EU as general principles of Community law, as established by
Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
                                                                         (Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in
                                                                         the case of S.A. Belgacom Mobile against Commune de
                                                                                Schaerbeek
                                                                                (Case C-545/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
(Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in                                              (2004/C 47/37)
   the case of S.A Mobistar against Commune de Fléron
                         (Case C-544/03)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2004/C 47/36)                                 European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Belgium)
                                                                         of 8 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         23 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.
                                                                         Belgacom Mobile against Commune de Schaerbeek on the
                                                                         following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Belgium)            1.     Should Article 49 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
of 8 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on                           precluding the introduction, by a national or local
23 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A                   authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communi-
Mobistar against Commune de Fléron on the following                             cations infrastructures used to carry on activities covered
questions:                                                                      by licences and authorisations?


title: Case T-222/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Kerstens v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Career development report — Time limit for lodging a complaint — Lateness — Appeal not founded)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-222/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Career development report - Time limit for lodging a complaint - Lateness - Appeal not founded)
   (2008/C 272/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) on 25 April 2007 in Case F-59/06 Kerstens v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking annulment of that order
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Petrus Kerstens to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case T-551/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED — Earlier national figurative mark VAMED — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED)
   (Case T-551/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AKTIVAMED - Earlier national figurative mark VAMED - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 155/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Radecki (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann then S. Hanne, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Vamed AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Paulitsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2013 (Case R 365/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vamed AG and Michael Radecki.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Michael Radecki to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-159/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — ‘Supply of goods’ — Condition for the existence of a supply of goods — Direct transfer of goods from a supplier to a third party by a carrier — No evidence of actual possession of the goods by the direct supplier — Lack of cooperation between the suppliers and the tax authorities — No transhipment of goods — Evidence justifying suspicions of tax fraud)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/7

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria)) — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-159/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Deduction of input VAT - ‘Supply of goods’ - Condition for the existence of a supply of goods - Direct transfer of goods from a supplier to a third party by a carrier - No evidence of actual possession of the goods by the direct supplier - Lack of cooperation between the suppliers and the tax authorities - No transhipment of goods - Evidence justifying suspicions of tax fraud))
   (2015/C 320/09)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Koela-N’ EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the tax authorities of a Member State from finding that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the result that the value added tax paid at the time of acquiring those goods cannot be deducted by the buyer, on the ground that that person has not received the goods which it has purchased but has sent them directly to a third party to whom it has resold them, or on the ground that the buyer’s direct supplier has not received the goods which it has purchased but has sent them directly to that buyer.

               2.

               Neither the fact that a taxable person’s upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not cooperated with the tax authorities nor the fact that there has been no transhipment of the goods concerned constitutes, in itself, sufficient objective evidence for concluding that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct value added tax was connected with tax fraud. Nevertheless, those two facts constitute objective evidence which may be taken into account, in the context of an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to determine whether the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as its basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case C-648/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria (Italy) lodged on 16 December 2016 — Fortunata Silvia Fontana v Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria (Italy) lodged on 16 December 2016 — Fortunata Silvia Fontana v Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria
   (Case C-648/16)
   (2017/C 086/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fortunata Silvia Fontana

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

      Question referred

   Do Articles 113 and 114 TFEU and Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude the Italian domestic legislation in Articles 62 sexies (3) and 62 bis of Legislative Decree 331/1993 [converted into law by] Law No 427 of 29 October 1993, which allows the application of VAT to the overall turnover established by extrapolation, in the light of the principle of deduction and the obligation to recover the tax and, more generally, the principle of the neutrality and the passing-on of the tax?

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


title: Case C-51/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2015 — Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord v Region Hannover

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2015 — Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord v Region Hannover
   (Case C-51/15)
   (2015/C 155/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Celle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: Remondis GmbH & Co. KG Region Nord

      Defendant and respondent: Region Hannover

      Intervener: Zweckverband Abfallwirtschaft Region Hannover

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an agreement between two regional authorities — on the basis of which the regional authorities form, by constituent statutes, a common special-purpose association with separate legal personality, which from that point on carries out, under its own responsibility, certain duties which hitherto were incumbent on the regional authorities concerned — constitute a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) in the case where that transfer of duties concerns services within the meaning of that directive and is effected for consideration, the special-purpose association carries out activities going beyond the ambit of the exercise of duties previously incumbent on the regional authorities concerned and the transfer of duties does not belong to ‘the two types of contracts’ which, although entered into by public entities, do not, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (most recently, judgment in Piepenbrock, C-386/11, (2) paragraph 33 et seq.), come within the scope of European Union public procurement law?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does the question whether the creation of a special-purpose association and the related transfer of duties to that association exceptionally does not come within the scope of European Union public procurement law depend on the principles which the Court of Justice has developed with regard to contracts concluded by a public entity with a person legally distinct from that entity — principles in accordance with which an application of European Union public procurement law is excluded — in the case where, at the same time, that entity exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and where that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the entity or with the entities which control it (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgment in Teckal, C-107/98, (3) paragraph 50), or, by contrast, do the principles which the Court of Justice has developed concerning contracts which establish cooperation between public entities with the aim of ensuring that a public task that they all have to perform is carried out apply (in that respect, judgment in Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecce and Others, C-159/11, (4) paragraphs 34 and 35)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

      (2)  ECLI:EU:C:2013:385.

      (3)  ECLI:EU:C:1999:562.

      (4)  ECLI:EU:C:2012:817.


title: Case T-56/08: Action brought on 5 February 2008 — IEA and Others v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/29

         Action brought on 5 February 2008 — IEA and Others v Commission
   (Case T-56/08)
   (2008/C 107/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Stichting IEA Secretariaat Nederland (IEA) (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Educational Testing Service Global BV (ETS-Europe) (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung (DIPF) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen (IQB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2007 rejecting the tender from the applicant in response to the call for tender No EAC/21/2007 ‘European survey on language competences’, in so far as it infringes EU law and is based on manifest errors of assessment;

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission awarding the contract related to this call for tender to the SurveyLang Consortium, in so far as it infringes EU law and is based on manifest errors of assessment; and

               —

               order, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the CFI, the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for tender concerning the ‘European survey on language competences’ (OJ 2007/S 61-074161), as rectified (OJ 2007/S 109-133727). The applicants contest the defendant's decision of 23 November 2007 to reject their bid and to award the contract to another tenderer.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment, Article 100(1) of the financial regulation (1) and the tender specifications.
   Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the qualitative criteria laid down in the tender specifications, which in turn led to a manifest error of assessment in the setting of the bidders' respective scores.
   Finally, the applicants allege that the Commission breached the principle of good administration by failing to exercise due care during the tender procedure.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1), as rectified (OJ 2003 L 25, p. 43).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl and CPL Imperial 2 SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Post-clearance recovery of customs duties - Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)

text:
C 234/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     would have been entitled if he had been reinstated on           2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
     1 January 1995 and the rights to which he is in fact
     entitled;                                                       (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
7. Orders that the sums due under point 6 above are to
     bear interest at the rate of 4.5 % from the date of their
     becoming payable;
8. Orders, before ruling on the amount of the                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     compensation payable by the defendant to the                                           of 4 May 1998
     applicant:
                                                                     in Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
     a) that the parties are to submit to the Court, within          Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
         three months after delivery of the present                                         Communities (1)
         judgment, the terms agreed by them in relation,             (Anti-dumping procedure Ð Interested party Ð Refusal Ð
         first, to the quantified amount of compensation             Action for annulment Ð Confirmatory act Ð Time-limit
         thus payable to the applicant and, second, in                                     Ð Inadmissibility)
         respect of the re-establishment of his pension
                                                                                (98/C 234/51)
         rights and the interest due in that regard;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
         and
     b) that, in the absence of such agreement, the parties          In Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
         are to send to the Court, within the same time-             Consommateurs (BEUC), established in Brussels,
         limit, their quantified submissions, stating the            represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, assisted by
         precise reasons for which they are unable to accept         Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with an
         the proposals made by the other party;                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde, against
9. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                     Nicholas Khan) Ð application for annulment of the
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                            Commission's decision of 3 February 1997 refusing to
                                                                     consider the applicant an interested party in the context of
                                                                     an anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of
                                                                     unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's
                                                                     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
                                                                     Turkey Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
                                                                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
                        of 9 June 1998                               Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl              4 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
and CPL Imperial 2 SpA v Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Post-clearance recovery of customs duties Ð Regulation              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
   (EEC) No 1697/79 Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)
                         (98/C 234/50)                               (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl,
established at Naples (Italy), and CPL Imperial 2 SpA,
established at Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in                                    of 11 June 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue
                                                                     in   Case    T-167/97:     Kyriakos Skrikas    v   European
Philippe II, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Parliament (1)
(Agents: initially, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Paolo
Stancanelli and, subsequently, Mr Stancanelli) Ð                     (Officials Ð Decision not to promote an official Ð Action
application for annulment of Commission Decision C(96)               for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð Act adversely affecting
2780 def of 8 October 1996 ordering the post-clearance               an official Ð Consideration of the comparative merits Ð
recovery of customs duties and for compensation for the              Interinstitutional transfer Ð Article 45(1) of the Staff
damage allegedly suffered by the applicants Ð the Court                                        Regulations)
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                                    (98/C 234/52)
President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                            (Language of the case: French)
given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                     In Case T-167/97: Kyriakos Skrikas, an official of the
1. Dismisses the applications;                                       European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented


title: Case C-293/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-293/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)
   2013/C 344/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case F-30/11: Action brought on 23 March 2011 — ZZ v Council

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/21

         Action brought on 23 March 2011 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-30/11)
   2011/C 179/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008, and compensation for harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the CDR for 2008 and order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered, provisionally estimated at EUR 5 000 and to be determined more precisely in the course of proceedings, and compensatory and late payment interest calculated at the rate of 6,75 % on the damages for material and non-material harm;

               —

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


title: Case F-99/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — López Teruel v OHIM (Officials — Sick leave — Unauthorised absence — Arbitration proceedings — Period in which to appoint an independent doctor)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — López Teruel v OHIM
   (Case F-99/06) (1)

   (Officials - Sick leave - Unauthorised absence - Arbitration proceedings - Period in which to appoint an independent doctor)
   (2007/C 155/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M.I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 20 October 2005 concerning the applicant's sick leave and adopted further to the conclusions of the independent doctor referred to in Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 October 2005 inasmuch as it treats Mrs López Teruel's absence as unauthorised absence from 8 to 20 February 2005 and from 7 April to 2 August 2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay one third of Mrs López Teruel's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006, p. 18.


title: Case C-193/12: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/6

         Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-193/12)
   2012/C 217/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to designate as vulnerable zones a number of zones characterised by the presence of surface and groundwater bodies which are, or may be, affected by excessive nitrate content and/or eutrophication, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (4) of and Annex I to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (1)

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission complains that when the defendant carried out a revision of the vulnerable zones in 2007, its designation of those zones was not comprehensive, as it ought to have been under Article 3(1) and (4) of and Annex I to Directive 91/676/EEC.
   The Commission complains in particular that the French authorities failed to designate 10 additional vulnerable zones and did not provide any specific information that might justify that omission.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.


title: Case F-10/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 November 2012 — Ghiba v Commission (Civil service — Internal competition — Non-admission to participate in a competition — Eligibility conditions — Concept of services attached to the Commission)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 November 2012 — Ghiba v Commission
   (Case F-10/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Internal competition - Non-admission to participate in a competition - Eligibility conditions - Concept of services attached to the Commission)
   2013/C 46/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dorina Maria Ghiba (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Eggers and P. Pecho, acting as Agents, then B. Eggers, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition COM/INT/EU2/AST3 to reject the applicant’s candidature on the ground that it did not meet the eligibility requirements stipulated in the notice of competition.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Ghiba to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011, p. 14.


title: Case F-28/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — López Cejudo v Commission (Civil service — Investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Daily subsistence allowance — Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of amounts unduly paid — Deductions from remuneration — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Intention to mislead the administration — Reasonable time-limit)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — López Cejudo v Commission
   (Case F-28/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Daily subsistence allowance - Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Recovery of amounts unduly paid - Deductions from remuneration - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Intention to mislead the administration - Reasonable time-limit))
   2014/C 184/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José López Cejudo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decisions to make several deductions from the applicant’s salary in respect of the months of June, July, August, September and October 2012

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr López Cejudo to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013, p. 57.


title: Case C-149/14: Action brought on 31 March 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/14

         Action brought on 31 March 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-149/14)
   2014/C 184/18
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(4) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 (1) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources in that it failed to designate areas which are characterised by the presence of bodies of groundwater or surface waters which are affected or are likely to be affected by an excessive concentration of nitrates and/or the phenomenon of eutrophification as ‘nitrate vulnerable zones’ (NVZ), a designation which ought to have been made on the basis of the available data and in that, additionally, by not having established the action programmes which are specified in Article 5 of that directive within one year after the designations referred to in Article 3(4) of the directive, the Hellenic Republic also infringed the provisions of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The objective of the directive on nitrates pollution is to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and, further, the prevention of such pollution. The directive imposes on the Member States the obligation to adopt various measures for the attainment of that objective. The relevant obligations include the obligation to designate areas of land which are in the territories of the Member States and the waters of which:

                           (a)

                           drain into surface freshwaters and/or groundwater (Article 3, Annex 1) which contain or could contain more than 50 mg/l nitrates, if the action required by the nitrates directive is not taken, and

                           (b)

                           drain into freshwater bodies, estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters which are or may become eutrophic, if action is not taken.

                     The abovementioned areas are called ‘nitrate vulnerable zones’ or NVZ.

               2.

               The Commission undertook a technical examination of the designation of NVZ by the Hellenic Republic in the framework of the directive and, on the basis of that examination, considered that the NVZ designation ought to be extended, in order fully to correspond to the requirements of the directive.

               3.

               From the information on concentration of nitrates submitted by Greece to the Commission (on the basis of Article 10 of the Directive, both for the 2004-2007 period and for the 2008-2011 period) and particularly on the basis of the data on the mean and maximum nitrate concentration figures in groundwater and the data related to eutrophic surface water (illustrative maps 3 and 4), the Commission identified nine areas which ought to have been designated as ΝVΖ and/or in respect of which the currently designated zone ought to have been extended.

               4.

               Having made such an analysis, in respect of each area, the Commission requests that the Court declare that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(4) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources in that it failed to designate areas which are characterised by the presence of bodies of groundwater or surface waters which are affected or are likely to be affected by an excessive concentration of nitrates and/or the phenomenon of eutrophification as ‘nitrate vulnerable zones’ (NVZ), a designation which ought to have been made on the basis of the available data.

               5.

               Further, by not having established the action programmes which are specified in Article 5 of that directive within one year after the designations referred to in Article 3(4) of the directive, the Hellenic Republic also infringed the provisions of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/ΕEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1


title: Case T-91/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/25

         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-91/05)
   (2005/C 115/47)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by Sinara Handel GmbH, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Community to make good the damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the definitive anti-dumping measures prescribed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, by awarding the amounts of EUR 1 633 344,33 to the applicant for loss of profit for the period between June 2000 and December 2002, together with default interest on this amount of 8 % annually;

               —

               in the alternative, to award a sum to the applicant by way of compensation for damage for loss of profit for the period between June 2000 and December 2002, to be assessed during the proceedings, following an interlocutory judgement of the Court, by agreement between the parties, and if no agreement is reached, by a final judgment of the Court;

               —

               order that all costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the Council and the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an importer of seamless pipes and tubes in the Community and is affected by the measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (1).
   The Commission also adopted Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (2), and imposing a fine on several Community producers of seamless pipes and tubes.
   The applicant claims that, given the overlap in the product scope, the companies involved and the periods of investigation of the competition and anti-dumping proceedings, the anti-competitive conduct of the Community producers affected the injury and causality analysis of the anti-dumping proceedings. The applicant submits that the defendants failed to take into account the anti-competitive conduct in their assessment of the injury caused by the imports and therefore breached Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (3) and infringed their obligation of good and sound administration and due care and diligence. The applicant also invokes a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and proportionality.
   The applicant states that the defendants have recognised in Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 of 16 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia and Romania (4) that the outcome of the analysis in the anti- dumping proceedings could have been different if the anti-competitive conduct had been considered.
   The applicant therefore claims damages for loss of profit suffered by it for the period between June 2000 and December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 322, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 56, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 246, p. 10.


title: Case C-282/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Ponta Delgada, by judgment of that court of 4 June 2000, in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias Açoreanas, SA

text:
26.8.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/27
Action brought on 3 July 2000 by the Commission of the                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                 da Comarca de Ponta Delgada, by judgment of that court
                                                                       of 4 June 2000, in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                       Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias
                         (Case C-270/00)                                                         Açoreanas, SA
                         (2000/C 247/41)
                                                                                (Case C-282/00)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July
2000, by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Dr Götz zur Hausen, Legal Advisor to the                                         (2000/C 247/42)
European Commission with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of
the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Judicial
                                                                       da Comarca de Ponta Delgada of 11 July 2000, which
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 17 July 2000, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açucar
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary       Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias Açoreanas,
      to comply with Articles 5, 16 and 17 of Council Directive        SA, on the following questions:
      86/609/EEC (1) of 24 November 1986 on the approxi-
      mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      of the Member States regarding the protection of animals
                                                                       1.   Does the second paragraph of Article 8 of Council
      used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 apply to
      Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            (i) sugar processed from raw sugar (sugar properly
      under that directive;
                                                                            speaking, whether it comes from locally-grown or
                                                                            imported raw sugarbeet) (ii) or only to sugar added to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       products which include it (such as cakes, soft drinks etc)?
                                                                            (essentially, what is sought is the substance of the
                                                                            expression ‘products ... are processed’ contained in the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             legislation).
As is clear from Articles 2 and 166 of the Act of Accession,           2.   Are the sales referred to in 3 (below) covered by the
the obligation under Article 25 of Directive 86/609/EEC took                concepts ‘traditional trade flows’, ‘traditional exports’ and
effect for Austria upon Austria’s accession on 1 January 1995.              ‘traditional ... shipments’ to ‘the rest of the Community’,
Such legislative measures as Austria has adopted since then                 contained in Article 3(3) and the second paragraph of
notwithstanding, the following provisions have not yet been                 Article 8 of the abovementioned regulation?
properly transposed into national law:
—     Article 5 (provisions relating to the general care and           3.   Irrespective of the answer to the preceding questions,
      accommodation of experimental animals). The provisions                does the legal framework in force, from September 1998
      of the Tierversuchsgesetz referred to by Austria only                 to date, allow Sinaga to sell in mainland Portugal sugar
      relate to user establishments but not to breeding and                 produced by it from sugarbeet harvested in the Azores
      supplying establishments and only to the approval and                 and for the production of which it obtains Community
      registration of user establishments but not to their day-             aid under the Poseima programme?
      to-day functioning;
—     Article 16 (identification by name of persons responsible        4.   Again irrespective of the answers to the preceding
      for breeding and supplying establishments);                           questions, does the legal framework in force, from
                                                                            September 1998 to date, allow Sinaga to sell in mainland
—     Article 17 (breeding and supplying establishments’ obli-              Portugal sugar produced by it from imported raw sugar-
      gation to keep records).                                              beet which is exempt from levies under the Poseima
                                                                            programme?
(1) OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1.


title: Case C-121/10: Action brought on 5 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/24

         Action brought on 5 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-121/10)
   2010/C 134/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2009/1017/EU of 22 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (1);

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council, by adopting the contested decision, has overturned the Commission's decision resulting from the proposal for appropriate measures in point 196 of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines and from its unconditional acceptance by Hungary, obliging the latter to bring to an end two existing aid schemes for the purchase of agricultural land by 31 December 2009 at the latest. Under the guise of exceptional circumstances, the Council has in fact allowed Hungary to maintain those schemes until the expiry of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines on 31 December 2013. The circumstances put forward by the Council as the grounds for its decision are self-evidently not exceptional circumstances of such a nature as to justify the decision taken and make no allowance for the Commission's decision on those schemes.
   In support of its action for annulment, the Commission puts forward four pleas in law:

               (a)

               In the first place, it considers that the Council was not competent to act under the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU because the aid which it approved was existing aid which Hungary had committed to eliminating by the end of 2009 when it accepted the appropriate measures proposed to it by the Commission.

               (b)

               Secondly, the Council has misused its powers, seeking to neutralise the determination of the Commission regarding aid measures which Hungary was free to retain until the end of 2009 but not after that date, by allowing those measures to be kept in place until 2013.

               (c)

               Thirdly, the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation which applies to Member States and also between institutions. By its decision, the Council has released Hungary from its obligation of cooperation with the Commission in relation to the appropriate measures accepted by that Member State regarding existing aid for purchase of agricultural land in the context of the cooperation established by Article 108(1) TFEU.

               (d)

               By its final plea, the Commission argues that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment insofar it found that exceptional circumstances existed which justify the adoption of the approved measure.

      (1)  OJ L 348, p 55


title: Case C-329/14: Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-329/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/36)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case C-130/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Common foreign and security policy — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Choice of legal basis — Articles 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU — Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — CFSP common positions and decisions — Joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and from the Commission)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-130/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Choice of legal basis - Articles 75 TFEU and 215 TFEU - Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - CFSP common positions and decisions - Joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and from the Commission)
   2012/C 295/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented initially by E. Perillo and K. Bradley, and subsequently by A. Auersperger Matić and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

      Intervening parties in support of the Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer and K. Najmanová, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of decision — Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 346, p. 42) — Choice of legal basis

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case T-449/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council — Recognition of professional qualifications — Freedom of establishment — Lawyers — Not directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case T-449/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2005/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council - Recognition of professional qualifications - Freedom of establishment - Lawyers - Not directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 96/75)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Ioanninon (Greece) (represented by: S. Athanasiou)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein, A. Troupiotis and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M.C. Giorgi Fort, M. Balta and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 2)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene;

               3.

               The applicant is to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the Parliament and the Council.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T -179/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  31 May 2006  — Stradeblu v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Stradeblu v Commission
   (Case T -179/05) (1)

   (2006/C 178/75)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-63/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansц ministerijos (Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 27(1)(f) — Alcohol contained in chocolate products — Exemption from the harmonised excise duty)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — UAB Profisa v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansц ministerijos
   (Case C-63/06) (1)

   (Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(f) - Alcohol contained in chocolate products - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty)
   (2007/C 96/25)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Referring court
   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UAB Profisa

      Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 concerning harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Obligation to exempt alcohol contained in chocolate products being imported from third countries
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages should be understood as imposing an obligation on Member States to exempt from harmonised excise duty ethyl alcohol imported into the customs territory of the European Union and contained in chocolate products intended for direct use, where the alcohol content does not exceed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilograms of the chocolate products.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-293/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg (Freedom of establishment — Taxation of companies — Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted by a company established in one Member State to its permanent establishment in another Member State)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
   (Case C-293/06) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Taxation of companies - Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted by a company established in one Member State to its permanent establishment in another Member State)
   (2008/C 107/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Currency exchange loss incurred by a company established in one Member State at the time of repatriation of the start-up capital which it had granted to a permanent establishment set up in another Member State — Not possible to take that loss into account for purposes of taxation in the Member State in which the company is established
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.

               2)

               It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any tax-free profits.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-329/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos (Greece), Trapeza tis Ellados AE v Banque Artesia (Free movement of capital — First Council Directive of  11 May 1960  — Acquisition of bonds dealt in on a stock exchange — Repatriation of the proceeds of their liquidation)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-329/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos (Greece), Trapeza tis Ellados AE v Banque Artesia (1)

   (Free movement of capital - First Council Directive of 11 May 1960 - Acquisition of bonds dealt in on a stock exchange - Repatriation of the proceeds of their liquidation)
   (2005/C 330/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-329/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arios Pagos (Greece), made by decision of 31 March 2003, received at the Court on 28 July 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Trapeza tis Ellados AE and Banque Artesia — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Bonds denominated in national currency for a term of one year from their issue, dealt in and quoted on a stock exchange, issued by a bank established in a Member State and belonging to that State, fall within List B, Item IV A of Annex I to the First Council Directive of 11 May 1960 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty. Their acquisition and the proceeds of their liquidation are governed by Article 2 of that directive, which refers to List B of Annex I to the directive, which provides for the repatriation of those proceeds.

               2.

               The fact that an acquisition of bonds falling within List B, Item IV A of Annex I to the First Directive was financed using balances on current or deposit account with a credit institution, even if falling within List D, Item IX of that annex, cannot have an influence on the classification of the capital movement in question under List B, Item IV A of that annex.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.


title: Case T-591/08: Action brought on 29 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/26

         Action brought on 29 December 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-591/08)
   (2009/C 82/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul EUROSTAT's decision to select the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders for the ‘Statistical Information Technologies’, Lot 2 ‘SDMX development’ and Lot 3 ‘SDMX support’ as second contractor of the cascade mechanism (OJ 2008/S 120-159017) communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 17 October 2008 and all further related decisions of EUROSTAT including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order EUROSTAT to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 4 326 000;

               —

               order EUROSTAT to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application the applicant seeks the annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of the decisions of EUROSTAT to select the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders for the ‘Statistical Information Technologies’, Lot 2 ‘SDMX development’ and Lot 3 ‘SDMX support’ as second contractor of the cascade mechanism (OJ 2008/S 120-159017) which were communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 17 October 2008, as well as the award of damages pursuant to Article 235 EC.
   The applicant claims that EUROSTAT committed various manifest errors of assessment, whereas fundamental rules and principles of public procurement have been allegedly infringed by the contracting authority. It is submitted that the evaluation of the applicant's tender was deficient, that EUROSTAT failed to state reasons, denied to address the applicant's detailed administrative appeal and associated observations and that it did not present the results of its internal examination to the applicant.
   The applicant further submits that the treatment of the candidates was discriminatory; that the exclusion criteria were not complied with by one of the members of the winning consortium and that Articles 93(1) and 94 of the Financial Regulation were infringed. Moreover, the applicant contends that should the Court find that the defendant infringed the Financial Regulation and/or the principles of transparency and of equal treatment, given the fact that the Court will rule on the application — in all likelihood — after the contract has been fully executed, the applicant requests monetary compensation EUR 4 326 000 from EUROSTAT, corresponding to its estimated gross profit from the public procurement procedure Lot 2 and Lot 3, should it have been awarded the contract.


title: Case C-669/13 P: Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic — Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC — Refusal of registration)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/12

      Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 — Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd
      (Case C-669/13 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of word mark Maxigesic - Opposition of the proprietor of the earlier word mark OXYGESIC - Refusal of registration)
      (2015/C 016/17)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Mundipharma GmbH (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for the Harminisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (represented by: N. Nentwig, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mundipharma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case C-236/14: Order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-236/14) (1)

   (2015/C 146/42)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-38/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2007 — Sunplus Technology v OHIM — Sun Microsystems (SUN PLUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative mark SUNPLUS — Earlier national word mark SUN — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity between goods — Similarity between marks)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2007 — Sunplus Technology v OHIM — Sun Microsystems (SUN PLUS)
   (Case T-38/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative mark SUNPLUS - Earlier national word mark SUN - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity between goods - Similarity between marks)
   (2007/C 315/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd (Hsinchu, Taiwan) (represented by: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl and S. Prückner, Lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2003 (Case R 642/2000-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-193/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi
   (Case C-193/17)
   (2017/C 283/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Cresco Investigation GmbH

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Markus Achatzi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is EU law, in particular Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding, in a dispute between an employee and an employer in the context of a private employment relationship, a national rule under which Good Friday is also a holiday, with an uninterrupted rest period of at least 24 hours, only for members of the Evangelical Churches of the Augsburg and Helvetic Confessions, the Old Catholic Church and the United Methodist Church, and if an employee [belonging to one of those churches] works, despite that day being a holiday, he has, in addition to the entitlement to payment for the work not requiring to be performed as a result of the day being a holiday, also an entitlement to payment for the work actually performed, whereas other employees, who are not members of those churches, do not have any such entitlement?

               2.

               Is EU law, in particular Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the national legislation referred to in the first question, which — as measured against the total population and the membership, on the part of the majority of the population, of the Roman Catholic Church — grants rights and entitlements to only a relatively small group of members of certain (other) churches, is not affected by that directive because it concerns a measure that in a democratic society is necessary to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, particularly the right freely to practise a religion?

               3.

               Is EU law, in particular Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that the national legislation referred to in the first question is a positive and specific measure in favour of the members of the churches mentioned in the first question which is designed to guarantee their full equality in working life, to prevent or offset disadvantages to those members due to religion, if they are thereby granted the same right to practise a religion during working hours on what is an important holiday for that religion, such as otherwise exists for the majority of employees in accordance with a separate provision of national law, because generally no work is performed on the holidays for the religion that is observed by the majority of employees?
               If it is found that there is discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC:

               4.

               Is EU law, in particular Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Articles 1, 2(2)(a) and 7(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, so long as the legislature has not created a non-discriminatory legal situation, a private employer is required to grant the rights and entitlements set out in the first question in respect of Good Friday to all employees, irrespective of their religious affiliation, or must the national provision referred to in the first question be disapplied in its entirety, with the result that the rights and entitlements in respect of Good Friday set out in the first question are not to be granted to any employees?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-257/01: Action brought on 3 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 245/12                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.9.2001
Action brought on 3 July 2001 by the Commission of                     Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the
the European Communities against the Council of the                        European Communities against Portuguese Republic
                         European Union
                                                                                (Case C-258/01)
                         (Case C-257/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/22)
                         (2001/C 245/21)
                                                                       An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice on 3 July 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin and
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       Francisco Miguel França, acting as Agents, with an address for
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero,
ties on 3 July 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Communities, represented by Ms Dominique Maidani and
Ms Carmel O’Reilly, acting as agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                       —     Declare that, by failing to transpose Article 6(1) and (4)
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                                of Directive 94/57/EC (1) on common rules and standards
                                                                             for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the
                                                                             relevant activities of maritime administrations and in
1.    Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 789/2001 of 24 April
                                                                             particular by not establishing a working relationship
      2001 reserving to the Council implementing powers
                                                                             regulated by a formalised written and non-discriminatory
      with regard to certain detailed provisions and practical
                                                                             agreement or equivalent legal arrangements with the
      procedures for examining visa applications (1).
                                                                             classification societies and by not providing the Com-
                                                                             mission with precise information on that working
2.    Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 790/2001 of 24 April                  relationship, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
      2001 reserving to the Council implementing powers                      its obligations under Article 6(1) and (4) of Directive
      with regard to certain detailed provisions and practical               94/57/EC;
      procedures for examining carrying out border checks and
      surveillance (2).                                                —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
3.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       Contentions and principal arguments
                                                                       Directive 94/57/EC was transposed into Portuguese law by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Decree-Law No 115/96 of 6 August 1996.
The Commission submits that the Council has, contrary to               According to the information received by the Commission
Article 202 of the Treaty and to Article 1 of Decision                 through the committee established by Article 7 of Direc-
1999/468/CE (3), improperly and irregularly reserved                   tive 94/57/EC, the Portuguese Republic delegates certain
implementing powers to itself and that, in any event, the              responsibilities to a number of classification societies (Ame-
Council has neither adequately nor properly motivated the              rican Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas, Germanischer
said reservation of implementing powers to itself. The Com-            Lloyd, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, Nippon Kaiiji Kyokai). The
mission is, furthermore, of the view that the procedure set up         Commission considers that the formalised written and non-
respectively by Article 2 of Regulation (CE) 789/2001 and by           discriminatory agreements or equivalent legal arrangements
Article 2 of Regulation (CE ) 790/2001 whereby, in essence, the        (Article 6(2) of Directive 94/57/EC), which determine the tasks
Member States themselves amend certain factual information             and specific functions to be undertaken by the organisations
respectively contained in the Common Consular Instructions             and which should have been concluded or adopted and
on Visas for the Diplomatic Missions and Consular Posts, in            forwarded to the Commission immediately after the said
Executive Committee decisions SCH/Com-ex (98) 56,                      delegation of responsibilities, have not yet been entered into,
SCH/Com-ex (99) 14 and SCH/Com-ex (94) 15, and in the                  a fact which, moreover, the Portuguese authorities admit.
Common Manual is irregular and contrary to Article 202 of              Furthermore, Article 6(4) of Directive 94/57/EC provides that
the Treaty.                                                            each Member State is to provide the Commission with precise
                                                                       information on the working relationship established with the
                                                                       classification societies. However, the Portuguese authorities
(1) OJ L 116, 26.4.2001, p. 2.                                         have not yet sent that information to the Commission, which
(2) OJ L 116, 26.4.2001, p. 5.                                         is under an obligation then to pass it to the other Member
(3) Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures        States.
    for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the
    Commission, OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 20.