title: Case T-319/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.4.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/61
In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the             It was stated in the application that the Community Ship-
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, received by the Com-              owners should hold 60 % of the shares of the joint enterprise,
mission on 30 July 2001, more than 53 months after                      while the partner in the relevant third Country, Namibia,
the complaint was lodged, called on the Commission, in                  should hold 40 % of the shares. After the withdrawal of the
accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, to adopt a                project of the Spanish company E. Vieira S.A. and the
position on the complaint and initiate the procedure under              replacement of two of the four vessels involved with two other
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.                                         vessels, the applicant and the Namibian partner concluded an
                                                                        agreement, according to which the applicant owned 28,51 %
                                                                        of the share capital, but only 13,68 % of the voting rights.
The Commission replied, after the two-month time-limit                  Finally, with effect from 1 May 1995, the applicant transferred
prescribed by Article 232, in a letter of 24 October 2001, in           part of its shareholding in the joint entreprise to the Namibian
which it does not define its position, but merely states that it        partner under an agreement providing that the applicant’s
is completing the internal preparatory work with regard to the          shareholding was reduced to 1 % of the share capital.
complaints.                                                             According to the contested Decision, the basis for providing
                                                                        financial aid has ceased to exist because of this reduction to
                                                                        1 % of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint undertaking,
                                                                        which is not be considered sufficient for a joint enterprise, as
                                                                        defined by Community Regulations.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Sea-
foods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the                         The contested Decision infringes Article 44(1) of the above
                   European Communities                                 mentioned Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86.
                        (Case T-319/01)                                 —     The reduction of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % did not mean that a joint enterprise
                                                                              within the meaning of the Regulation no longer existed.
                        (2002/C 84/112)
                                                                        —     The applicant had a legitimate expectation that the
                  (Language of the case: English)                             reduction of the Applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % would not result in any demand for
                                                                              repayment of aid from the Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Norway                      (1) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.
Seafoods Denmark A/S, represented by Mr Jacob Ørndrup of
Gorrissen Federspiel Kierkegaard, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October
      2001
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
                                                                        Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-323/01)
The present application has been lodged against Commission
Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October 2001, regarding the                                          (2002/C 84/113)
reduction and repayment of financial aid to Foodmark A/S
under Commission Decision K(93)1823 of 5 July 1993, as
amended by Decision K(94)119 of 27 January 1994, for                                       (Language of the case: French)
Project SM/DNK/02/93, the object of which was an application
for financial aid pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 4028/88 of 18 December 1986, on Community measures
to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquacul-
ture sector as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
No. 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (1). The applicant’s name               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
at the time of this application was Foodmark A/S; this name             European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
was later changed to Foodmark Holding A/S and later still to            Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges
Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S.                                            Vandersanden and Laura Levi, avocats.


title: Case C-474/07: Action brought on 25 October 2007 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/31

         Action brought on 25 October 2007 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-474/07)
   (2007/C 297/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley and U. Rosslein, Agents)

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

               —

               annul Commission Regulations (EC) No 915/2007 (1) of 31 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, and

               —

               order Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   As co-legislator with the Council the European Parliament decided in 2002 that certain implementing measures on air security should not be published. The applicant maintains that the Commission has applied this rule incorrectly, by systematically failing to publish implementing measures which do not require to be kept secret. In adopting Regulation 915/207, the Commission has misinterpreted its powers under Regulation 2320/2002, contravened Article 254 EC and the principles of democracy, openness and the publicity of legislative acts, created legal uncertainty, and failed to provide a proper statement of reasons.

      (1)  OJ L 200, p. 3.


title: References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of 31 March 1998 (first two cases) and of 1 April 1998 in the cases of Océano Grupo Editorial SA and Others and R. Murciano Quintero and Others (Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98)

text:
5.9.98                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/21
communication of transposition measures. The Directives            8 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
should have been transposed by no later than 1 July 1994.          Communities, represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard
                                                                   Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(1 ) OJ L 228, 11.2.1992, p. 1.
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(2 ) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1.
(3 ) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(4 ) OJ L 63, 13.3.1979, p. 1.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that, by prohibiting the issue by banks
                                                                       established outside France of certificates of deposit
References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de Primera               and issues of Euro-bonds in French francs for an
Instancia No 35, Barcelona, by orders of that court of                 initial term of less than one year, as well as issues of
31 March 1998 (first two cases) and of 1 April 1998 in                 national bonds for an initial term of less than three
the cases of OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and Others and                 months, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
               R. Murciano Quintero and Others                         obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty,
             (Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98)                       Article 59 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 89/
                                                                       646/EEC (1),
                          (98/C 278/35)
                                                                   Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of Juzgado de Primera
Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 35, Barcelona, of
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
31 March 1998 (in the first two cases) and 1 April 1998,
which were received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1998,
for a preliminary ruling in the cases of OceÂano Grupo
Editorial SA and Others and R. Murciano Quintero (Case             Ð Infringement of Article 73b of the EC Treaty: the
C-240/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. M. SaÂnchez Alcón                 rules governing the Euro-franc market, adopted on
Prades (C-241/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. L. Copano                 19 November 1996 by the Issues Board, continue to
Badillo (C-242/98), Salvat Editores SA and M. Berroane                 provide that the term for which securities are issued in
(C-243/98), and Salvat Editores SA and E. VinÄas Feliu                 the context of an issue on the Euro-franc market may
(C-244/98), on the following question:                                 not be less than one year. The rule prohibiting banks
                                                                       established outside France from issuing certificates of
                                                                       deposit and short-term securities in francs constitutes a
Whether the scope of the consumer protection provided by               restriction on the free movement of capital, contrary
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in                     to Article 73b of the EC Treaty,
consumer contracts is such that the national court may
consider of its own motion whether a term is unfair when
making its preliminary assessment as to whether leave              Ð Infringement of Article 59 and of Directive 89/646/
should be granted for a claim to proceed before the                    EEC: since the issue by banks of certificates of deposit
ordinary courts.                                                       or of bonds constitutes a service within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 60 of the EC Treaty, Article 59 precludes the
(1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                         application of national rules of any kind which, in the
                                                                       absence of any objective justification, restrict the
                                                                       possible exercise by a supplier of services of his
                                                                       freedom to provide such a service. By prohibiting
                                                                       banks which are not established in France from issuing
                                                                       securities in the same way as domestic banks, which
                                                                       may freely do so, the measures complained of also
                                                                       constitute restrictions on freedom to provide banking
Action brought on 8 July 1998 by the Commission of the                 services, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty and
     European Communities against the French Republic                  Article 18(1) of Directive 89/646/EEC, which confers
                                                                       on all banks within the Community freedom to
                        (Case C-245/98)
                                                                       provide cross-border banking services.
                          (98/C 278/36)
                                                                   (1) OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1.
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-341/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services — Undertakings in the construction industry — Minimum wages — Comparison between the minimum wage established by the provisions of the Member State to the territory of which a worker is posted and the remuneration actually paid by his employer established in another Member State — Failure to take into account, as constituent elements of the minimum wage, all of the allowances and supplements paid by the employer established in another Member State)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-341/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services - Undertakings in the construction industry - Minimum wages - Comparison between the minimum wage established by the provisions of the Member State to the territory of which a worker is posted and the remuneration actually paid by his employer established in another Member State - Failure to take into account, as constituent elements of the minimum wage, all of the allowances and supplements paid by the employer established in another Member State)
   (2005/C 143/04)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-341/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Sack and H. Kreppel) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 25 September 2002, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to recognise as constituent elements of the minimum wage allowances and supplements which do not alter the relationship between the service provided by a worker and the consideration which that worker receives in return, and which are paid by employers established in other Member States to their employees in the construction industry who are posted to Germany, with the exception of the general bonus granted to workers in the construction industry, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.


title: Case C-433/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — SKP k.s. v Kveta Polhošová (Request for a preliminary ruling — Lack of adequate information on the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Questions submitted in a context which precludes any useful answer — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/4

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — SKP k.s. v Kveta Polhošová
   (Case C-433/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Lack of adequate information on the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Questions submitted in a context which precludes any useful answer - Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 108/06
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SKP k.s.

      Defendant: Kveta Polhošová

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove — Interpretation of Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Concept of unfair commercial practice — Contract for the sale of goods by hire purchase concluded with a consumer and containing an unfair term — Assignment by the undertaking of the claim under the contract to a bankrupt company, making it impossible for the consumer to recover the costs of legal proceedings if she wins the case

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia), by decision of 10 August 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-574/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2016 — Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2016 — Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez
   (Case C-574/16)
   (2017/C 030/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. (formerly Limpiezas Pisuerga Grupo Norte Limpisa, S.A.)

      Respondent: Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of the principle of equivalence between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, must ending of the employment contract due to ‘objective circumstances’ under Article 49(1)(c) ET [Estatuto de los Trabajadores: Workers’ Statute] and its ending on ‘objective grounds’ under Article 52 ET be regarded as ‘comparable situations’ and does, therefore, the difference between the compensation payable in either case constitute unequal treatment of between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, prohibited by Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

               2.

               If so, must the social-policy objectives legitimising the creation of the ‘contrato de relevo’ model of contract also be deemed to justify, under clause 4.1 of the abovementioned framework agreement, the difference in treatment relating to the lower amount of compensation for termination of the employment relationship when the employer freely decides that such a ‘contrato de relevo’ should be for a fixed term?

               3.

               For the purposes of guaranteeing the practical effect of Directive 1999/70 EC, if there should be found to be no reasonable justification under clause 4.1, is the unequal treatment of temporary and permanent employees with regard to compensation for termination of their contracts, laid down in the Spanish legislation referred to above, to be interpreted as constituting discrimination of the kind prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter, and therefore as contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination that are part of the general principles of EU law?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-573/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — TF1 v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/42

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — TF1 v Commission
   (Case T-573/08)
   (2009/C 55/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 16 July 2008 in Case N 279/2008-France (Capital endowment for France Télévisions);

               —

               order the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant applies for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008, by which the Commission had held State aid in the form of a capital endowment of EUR 150 million in favour of France Télévisions to be compatible with the common market. The applicant requests in that context the initiation of the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) EC.
   In support of its application, the applicant asserts, on the substance of the case, two pleas:

               —

               based on the finding that there were serious difficulties in response to which the Commission should have been required to initiate the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) EC, those serious difficulties being demonstrated by (i) the fact that the decision was materially inaccurate, (ii) the inadequacy of the information at the Commission's disposal and (iii) the unusually short duration, as well as the circumstances, of the preliminary phase of investigation;

               —

               relating to a failure to state grounds, in so far as the Commission did not collect all the necessary information and/or did not take into consideration the information at its disposal and in so far as the Commission's reasoning in paragraph 23 of the contested decision could depart from its previously adopted position without the Commission nonetheless justifying that departure.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 1999 in Case C-392/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Appeal procedure concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products introduced by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl (Proprietary medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate)

text:
18.12.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 366/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (C-201/98 and C-202/98) in such a
                                                                                way as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory access by
                                                                                Community nationals to the cargo shares due to Belgium and
                          (First Chamber)                                       Luxembourg or to denounce those agreements, the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium (C-171/98 and C-201/98) and the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg (C-202/98) have failed to fulfil their obligations
                      of 14 September 1999                                      under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December
                                                                                1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to
                                                                                maritime transport between Member States and between Member
in Joined Cases C-171/98, C-201/98 and C-202/98: Com-                           States and third countries, in particular Articles 3 and 4(1)
mission of the European Communities v Kingdom of                                thereof with respect to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic
        Belgium and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg(1)                                of Côte d’Ivoire and Article 5 thereof with respect to the Republic
                                                                                of Mali and the Togolese Republic;
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC)                          2. In Cases C-171/98 and C-201/98, orders the Kingdom of
No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services — Maritime                             Belgium to pay the costs and, in Case C-202/98, orders the
                              transport)                                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                          (1999/C 366/04)                                  (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Joined Cases C-171/98, C-201/98 and C-202/98: Com-
                                                                                of 16 September 1999
mission of the European Communities (Agents: Frank Benyon
and Bernard Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium (C-171/98
and C-201/98) (Agent: Jan Devadder) and Grand Duchy of                     in Case C-392/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Luxembourg (C-202/98) (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — appli-                     the Bundesgerichtshof): Appeal procedure concerning the
cations for declarations that, by concluding and maintaining               creation of a supplementary protection certificate for
in force the agreements containing cargo-sharing arrangements              medicinal products introduced by Farmitalia Carlo Erba
with the Togolese Republic (C-171/98 and C-202/98) and the                                                   Srl(1)
Republic of Mali (C-201/98 and C-202/98) and by failing
either to adjust the agreements with the Republic of Senegal               (Proprietary medicinal products — Supplementary protec-
and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (C-201/98 and C-202/98) in                                            tion certificate)
such a way as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory
access by Community nationals to the cargo shares due to                                               (1999/C 366/05)
Belgium and Luxembourg or to denounce those agreements,
the Kingdom of Belgium (C-171/98 and C-201/98) and the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-202/98) have failed to fulfil                                     (Language of the case: German)
their obligations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86
of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport between Member States               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986                                          in the European Court Reports)
L 378, p. 1), in particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof with
respect to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Côte                In Case C-392/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
d’Ivoire and Article 5 thereof with respect to the Republic of             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichts-
Mali and the Togolese Republic — the Court (First Chamber),                hof, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal proceed-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Ed-                 ings brought before that court by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl —
ward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advo-              on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of Council
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the
14 September 1999, in which it:                                            creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
                                                                           products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1. Declares that, by concluding and maintaining in force the               composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
     agreements containing cargo-sharing arrangements with the             P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and
     Togolese Republic (C-171/98 and C-202/98) and the Republic            L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     of Mali (C-201/98 and C-202/98) and by failing either to              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     adjust the agreements with the Republic of Senegal and the            16 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         18.12.1999
1. On a proper construction of Council Regulation (EEC)                     1. Declares that, by exempting from value added tax intra-
     No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a                     Community imports and acquisitions of arms, ammunition and
     supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products and,            equipment exclusively for military use, other than the aircraft and
     in particular, Article 3(b) thereof, where a product in the form            warships mentioned in points 23 and 25 of Annex F to Sixth
     referred to in the marketing authorisation is protected by a basic          Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     patent in force, the supplementary protection certificate is capable        harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     of covering the product, as a medicinal product, in any of the              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     forms enjoying the protection of the basic patent.                          basis of assessment, in the version resulting from Council
                                                                                Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing
2. In order to determine, in connection with the application of                  the common system of value added tax and amending Directive
     Regulation No 1768/92 and, in particular, Article 3(a) thereof,             77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers,
     whether a product is protected by a basic patent, reference must            notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 2(2), 14, 28a, and
     be made to the rules which govern that patent.                              28c(B) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ No C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                 2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 16 September 1999                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-414/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                             of 16 September 1999
                     ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                            in Case C-435/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Imports                  from the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die
and acquisitions of armaments — Sixth VAT Directive —                       Provinz Bozen): World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Others
          National legislation not complying therewith)                               v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others (1)
                            (1999/C 366/06)                                 (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
                                                                                the effects of certain public and private projects)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                   (1999/C 366/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: German)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-414/97: Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agents: Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and Carlos Gómez de la                                   in the European Court Reports)
Cruz) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Nuria Diaz Abad) —
application for a declaration that, by exempting from value                 In Case C-435/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
added tax intra-Community imports and acquisitions of arms,                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungs-
ammunition and equipment exclusively for military use, other                gericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen (Administrat-
than the aircraft and warships mentioned in points 23 and 25                ive Court, Autonomous Division for the Province of Bolzano),
of Annex F to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May                  Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                  before that court between World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                   Others and Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others — on the
tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                     interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 2(2), 14, 28a and                1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
28c(B) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to                private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth               — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                     President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm
Chamber, G. Hirsch and J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), Judges;                    (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
judgment on 16 September 1999, in which it:                                 16 September 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case F-112/06: Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Krčová v Court of Justice

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/49

         Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Krčová v Court of Justice
   (Case F-112/06)
   (2006/C 281/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Erika Krčová (Trnava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the Court of Justice's decision of 18 October 2005 to dismiss the applicant at the end of her probationary period and, in so far as necessary, the Court of Justice's decisions of 16 September 2005, extending her probationary period for two months from the preceding 1 August, and of 12 September 2005, establishing a probation report recommending the applicant's dismissal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law, the first of which alleges breach of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, manifest error of assessment, failure to state the grounds and breach of essential procedural requirements. In particular, the appointing authority, in adopting the contested decisions, failed to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 34 of the Staff Regulations and failed, among other things, to ensure that the conditions of the applicant's probationary period were proper.
   The second plea in law alleges misuse of powers and abuse of process by the Complaints Committee of the Court of Justice.
   The third plea in law alleges breach of the principles of sound administration and good management and interference with the rights of the defence.


title: Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo di Giovine v. Council of the European Union (Case T-38/98)

text:
C 137/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.5.98
    Council Decision 97/803 pursuant to Articles 173 and                provision in question is that it is an anticipatory decision
    174 of the EC Treaty, and                                           on aid, residual aid, with effect from the year 2000, for
                                                                        the southern region, the only area for which no provision
                                                                        was made for aid to be reduced to zero during the
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                        currency of Regulation No 1105/95.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The applicants rely on the following pleas in law:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those raised in Case T-310/97, Nederlandse Antillen v.                  Ð lack of any statement of reasons. Since the 14th recital
Council of the European Union (2).                                           in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1101/95
                                                                             clearly indicates the essential reasons for maintaining a
(1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.                                             significant level of adjustment aid for sugar-beet
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                               growing in the south until 2000/2001, it is not clear
                                                                             how it can possibly now be presumed now that those
                                                                             reasons will no longer be valid after 2001. Rather, it is
                                                                             clear that at least the climatic and soil conditions of
                                                                             the area, expressly taken into account in the
                                                                             abovementioned recital, are bound to persist,
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Associazione
Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo di
                                                                        Ð infringement of essential procedural requirements, in
         Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                             that, since the contested Article 2 operates as a
                         (Case T-38/98)                                      decision specific to the south of Italy rather than as a
                          (98/C 137/40)                                      regulatory provision in the strict sense, the Italian
                                                                             State should have been consulted so that it could
                                                                             submit observations. That applies also because of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              importance and essential nature of the problems of
                                                                             agriculture in the south in the context of the national
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      economy and the adverse effects which outright
brought before the Court of First Instance on 5 March                        abolition of aid might entail for the south,
1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco
Coccia and Vincenzo di Giovine, represented by Luigi
Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna                Ð misuse of powers. In this case the purpose pursued is
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        incomprehensible, above all regarding timing and
chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.                     regarding the divergence, again from the temporal
                                                                             point of view, between the decision and its frame of
                                                                             reference. This is also borne out by the fact that such
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                        a clear anticipation of a decision which should not
should:                                                                      have been adopted until 2001 and then with reference
                                                                             to the situation prevailing at that time could
Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/                        improperly constitute a predetermined frame of
    97 of 15 December 1997,                                                  reference inappropriate for any manoeuvring regarding
                                                                             Community production quotas assigned to each
                                                                             Member State. Finally, as regards the progressive
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      removal of existing disparities, described by Article 39
                                                                             of the Treaty as an essential aim of the CAP, it is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          difficult to see how it can now be assumed that in
                                                                             2001 the structural imbalances in agriculture and
                                                                             industry will have disappeared, the fact being that
The applicants, the association protecting the interests of                  natural disparities will remain because of their
beet-growers throughout Italy, and beet-growers operating                    inherent characteristics.
directly in the south, within the meaning of the regional
diversification criteria laid down in Article 46 of
Regulation (EC) No 1785/81, as amended by Regulation                    (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common
(EC) No 1101/95 (1), seek the annulment of Article 2 of
                                                                            organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation
Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 (2) in so far as it provides for                 (EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the
the abolition of any adjustment aid for the sugar-beet                      production refund on certain sugar products used in the
sector, with effect from the marketing year 2001/2002.                      chemical industry (OJ L 110, 17.5.1995, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997
                                                                            authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar-beet producers and
According to the applicants, the contested provision                        abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year
predominantly affects beet-growing areas in the southern                    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).
region of Italy, thereby being in the nature of an
individual decision rather than a regulation in the true
sense. From that standpoint, the essential feature of the


title: Case C-662/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/18

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-662/11)
   2012/C 73/33
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Zavvos)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 24 of, in conjunction with Annex VII to, the Act of Accession of the Republic of Cyprus relating to the removal of the restrictions existing in its national legislation that concern the acquisition by EU/EEA nationals of residences for secondary use, by 1 May 2009 at the latest, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under that act;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that, in view of Article 24 of, in conjunction with Annex VII to, the Act of Accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union, the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus had to bring into force by 1 May 2009 at the latest the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order that the restrictions in force in its national legislation placed upon the acquisition by EU/EEA nationals of residences for secondary use are removed. Those restrictions constitute a direct infringement of the free movement of capital as laid down in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   The Cypriot Government sent a draft law concerning amendment of the restrictions in force, and maintains that it has been submitted for approval to the Council of Ministers with the objective of it being examined as rapidly as possible and being transmitted to the parliament to be voted upon.
   The Commission observes that the infringement of a freedom enshrined by the Treaty by provisions of a Member State’s national legislation can be removed only by the adoption of equally binding provisions. Therefore, the enclosing of a mere draft law, which has not acquired any legislative force, with the Republic of Cyprus’s letter in response cannot be equated to a binding act removing the provisions in force regarding the acquisition by EU/EEA nationals of residences for secondary use.
   The Commission submits that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the removal of the restrictions existing in its national legislation that concern the acquisition by EU/EEA nationals of residences for secondary use or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Cypriot Government has failed to fulfil its obligations to comply with Article 24 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Cyprus, in conjunction with Annex VII to that act relating to the transitional provisions that concern Cyprus.


title: Case T-506/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/37

         Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
   (Case T-506/09)
   2010/C 51/71
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Carlyle, LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mascha & Regner Consulting KEG (Vienna, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 240/2009-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation: The word mark ‘THE CARLYLE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 25 and 42

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially rejected the request for revocation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Revoked the Community trade mark concerned

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously employed a too restrictive interpretation of the concept of genuine use. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to take into consideration properly the evidence of use submitted by the applicant before the Cancellation Division; (ii) to assess correctly the scope of the said evidence of use; and (iii) to make an overall assessment thereof.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case C-310/93 P: BPB Industries Plc and British Gypsum Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Exclusive purchase contract - Loyalty payments - Effect on trade between Member States - Attributability of the infringement)

text:
No C 137/4         I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3 . 6. 95
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      (Third Chamber )
                        of 6 April 1995                                                       of 6 April 1995
in Case C-3 10/93 P: BPB Industries Pic and British Gypsum          in Case C-3 15/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
   Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities ( : )              the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent (Belgium )): 1 . Flip
(Competition — Abuse ofa dominantposition — Exclusive                         CV 2. O. Verdegem NV v. Belgian State ( J )
purchase contract — Loyalty payments — Effect on trade              (Agriculture — Control of classical swine fever —
between Member States — Attributability of the                      Compensation for owners whose pigs have been
                          infringement)                                                          slaughtered)
                         ( 95/C 137/07 )                                                       ( 95/C 137/08 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-3 10/93 P: BPB Industries Pic, a company
governed by English law, established in Slough, United
Kingdom, and British Gypsum Ltd, a company governed by
English law, established in Nottingham, United Kingdom              In Case C-315/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Agents : Michel Waelbroeck, Denis Waelbroeck, and                 of the EEC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
Gordon Boyd Buchanan Jeffrey) — appeal against the                  ( Court of First Instance ), Ghent ( Belgium ), for a preliminary
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 1 April 1993 in Case              1 . Flip CV 2 . O. Verdegem NV and Belgian State — on the
T-65/89 BPB Industries and British Gypsum v. Commission             interpretation and validity of Commission Decision
[1 993 ] ECR 11-389 , seeking to have that judgment set aside,      88/529/EEC of 7 October 1988 approving the plan for the
the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of          eradication of classical swine fever presented by the
the European Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ),                 Kingdom of Belgium ( 2 ) — the Court (Third Chamber),
supported by Iberian UK Ltd, formerly Iberian Trading               composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
(UK ) Ltd, a company governed by English law, established           Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
in London ( Agents : John E. Pheasant and Simon W. Polito )         Judges;         G.     Tesauro,          Advocate-General;       D.
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of F. A.                    Loutermann-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn            Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , the operative
( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris and J. L.            part of which is as follows:
Murray, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which it:
                                                                    1 . the applicable Community rules on control of classical
                                                                          swine fever must be interpreted as not requiring Member
                                                                          States to provide for a system of compensation for
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                 owners whose pigs have been slaughtered by order ofthe
                                                                          national authorities ;
2 . orders the appellants to bear the costs, including those of     2 . examination of the Community rules on the matter has
    the intervener.
                                                                          not revealed any factor of such a kind as to affect their
                                                                          validity.
(') OJ No C 204 , 28 . 7. 1993 .
                                                                    (!) OJ No C 192, 16 . 7. 1993 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 291 , 25 . 10 . 1988 , p . 78 .


title: Case C-26/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-26/16)
   (2016/C 136/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Is it contrary to Article 138[2](a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 [on the common system of value added tax] for provisions of national law [Articles 1(e) and 14(b) of the VAT Rules on Intra-Community Transactions — RITI] to require, for the grant of exemption from VAT on the supply for consideration of new means of transport, transported by the purchaser from national territory to another Member State, the purchaser to be established or domiciled in that Member State?

               (2)

               Is it contrary to Article 138[2](a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC for exemption from the tax in the Member State of commencement of the transport operation to be refused in circumstances in which the means of transport purchased has been transported to Spain, where it has been granted tourist registration, provisionally and subject to the fiscal rules laid down in Articles 8 to 11, 13 and 15 of Spanish Royal Decree 1571/1993 of 10 September 1993?

               (3)

               Is it contrary to Article 138(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to require the payment of VAT by the supplier of a new means of transport in circumstances in which it has not been demonstrated whether or not the tourist registration rules have ceased to apply because of one of the situations provided for in Articles 11 and 15 of Spanish Royal Decree 1571/1993 of 10 September 1993, or whether VAT has been or will be paid by reason of the disapplication of those rules?

               (4)

               Is it contrary to Article 138 [2](a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations to require VAT to be paid by the supplier of a new means of transport dispatched to another Member State, in circumstances in which:

                           —

                           the purchaser, before dispatch, informs the supplier that he resides in the Member State of destination and produces to him a document proving that he has been assigned a foreign national’s identity number in that Member State, indicating a residence in that State different from the residence stated by the purchaser himself;

                           —

                           the purchaser subsequently gives to the supplier documents proving that the means of transport purchased has undergone a technical inspection in the Member State of destination and that he has been granted a tourist registration in that State;

                           —

                           it has not been demonstrated that the supplier collaborated with the purchaser to avoid paying VAT;

                           —

                           the customs authorities have not raised any objection to the cancellation of the customs declaration for the vehicle on the basis of the documents in the possession of the supplier?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/55

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-55/04)
   (2004/C 94/146)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUDWEISER for Classes 29 and 30 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ — Application No 24638 in respect of goods in Classes 29 and 30 (fruits etc)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUDWEISER BIER’, ‘BUDWEISER BIER —BUDVAR’, ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 July 1996 in Case C-84/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Ireland): Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v. Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General (Embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) - Impounding of an aircraft)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/ 13
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward,                      Directive 64/433/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P.                  to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 3 of Directive
Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz,                    92/5/EEC;
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1 . Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                      (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
      period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 57, 1992 , p . 1 .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91 /157'/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
      accumulators containing certain dangerous substances,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that Directive;
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 July 1996
(') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 38 .                                    in Case C-84/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Supreme Court of Ireland ): Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm
                                                                      ve Ticaret AS v. Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General f 1 )
                                                                      (Embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
                                                                         (Serbia and Montenegro) — Impounding of an aircraft)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             ( 96/C 336/24 )
                         ( Sixth Chamber )
                          of 11 July 1996                                                (Language of the case: English)
       in Case C-304/95 : Commission of the European
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                  In Case C-84/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/5/EEC —                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)             Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                           ( 96/C 336/23 )                            before that court between Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm
                                                                      ve Ticaret AS and Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                      Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General — on
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                        the interpretation of Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 990/93 of 26 April 1993 concerning trade between the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          European Economic Community and the Federal Republic
           published in the European Court Reports)                   of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) ( 2 ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
In Case C-304/95 : Commission of the European                         Kakouris and D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ),
Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou Durande ) v. Hellenic               G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
Republic ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana                 ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón,
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to         Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,
adopt and notify to the Commission within the prescribed              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            30 July 1996 , in which it rules :
necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/5/EEC of
10 February 1992 amending and updating Directive                      Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 990/93 of
77/99/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community                26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
trade in meat products and amending Directive                         Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
64/433/EEC ( 2 ), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its      Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) applies to an aircraft
obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty and Directive                   which is owned by an undertaking based in or operating
92/5/EEC — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                  from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn            Montenegro), even though the owner has leased it for four
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz,                  years to another undertaking, neither based in nor operating
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    from that Republic and in which no person or undertaking
judgment on 11 July 1996, in which it:                                based in or operating from that republic has a majority or
                                                                      controlling interest.
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                 (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           ( 2 ) OJ No L 102 , 1993 , p . 14 .
      92/5/EEC of 10 February 1 992 amending and updating
      Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems affecting
      intra-Community trade in meat products and amending


title: Case C-210/99: Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 204/34               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
1. May Article 4, in conjunction with Article 1, of Council            Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
     Regulation No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the             European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                         Luxembourg
     transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) be
     interpreted as permitting the provision of island cabotage                                 (Case C-210/99)
     services by undertakings covering regular shipping lines
     to be made subject to obtaining prior administrative
     authorisation?                                                                             (1999/C 204/69)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
2. If so, may the grant and continuation of such administrat-          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     ive authorisation be made subject to the satisfaction of          ties on l June 1999 by the Commission of the European
     conditions such as fulfilment of fiscal and social security       Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
     obligations, distinct from those set out in Article 4(2) of       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     the Regulation?                                                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
3. May Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 be interpreted
     as permitting, in relation to one line or maritime route,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     public service obligations to be imposed on some shipping
     companies while, at the same time, public service contracts,      1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
     within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Regulation, are              laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     concluded with others, in order to ensure regular services             to comply with Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June
     to, from or between islands?                                           1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings (1), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that directive; and
(1) OJ No L 364 of 12 December.1992, p. 7.
                                                                       2. Order the Grand Duchy of̀ Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
                                                                       Article 16(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70.
                                                                       (2) See this OJ p. 28.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-
richt Bonn by order of that court of 22 April 1999 in the
          case of Birgit Frings v Blendermann GmbH
                         (Case C-209/99)
                                                                       Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                         (1999/C 204/68)                                                          Luxembourg
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                          (Case C-211/99)
European Communities by an order of the Third Chamber of
the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Labour Court, Bonn) of 22 April                                        (1999/C 204/70)
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 1 June
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Birgit Frings v
Blendermann GmbH on the following question:                            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Is there a breach of the prohibition under European law of             Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
indirect discrimination on grounds of sex if national appli-           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
cation of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Protection                the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its legal Service,
against Dismissal) has the result that, where the amount of            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
work required is reduced for operational reasons, if the
employer has made a business decision to maintain the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
full-time posts occupied, then because of lack of comparability
no selection on social grounds takes place between part-time           1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
and full-time employees, even though the part-time employee                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
is prepared to accept a full-time post?                                     to comply with Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June
                                                                            1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                            and the charging of infrastructure fees (1), the Grand Duchy
                                                                            of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive; and


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-119/94 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Official - Failure to give reasons for a decision rejecting an application - Award of compensation - Waiver of rights under the Staff Regulations)

text:
No C 189/4             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 7 . 95
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
                         ( Third Chamber)                               that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                        laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                           of 1 June 1995                               comply with Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989
in Case C-l 19/94 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of                on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                 the European Communities ( l )                         relating to machinery ( 2) and Council Directive 91/368/EEC
(Appeal — Official — Failure to give reasons for a decision             of 20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC (3 ), the
rejecting an application — Award of compensation —                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
          Waiver of rights under the Staff Regulations)                 Community law — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed
                                                                        of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.
                            ( 95/C 189/07 )                             Jann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevôn,
                                                                        Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         has given a judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
           published in the European Court Reports)                            period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                               provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
In Case C-l 1 9/94 P : Dimitrios Coussios ( lawyer: Georges                    Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the
Sakellaropoulos ) — appeal against the judgment of the                         approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating
Court of First Instance of the European Communities ( Fifth                    to machinery and Council Directive 91 /368/EEC of
Chamber ) of 23 February 1994 in Joined Cases T-18/92 and                      20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC, the
T-68/92 Coussios v . Commission [ 1994] ECR-SC II, p . 171 ,                   Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to                    Community law;
the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria
Alves Vieira ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of:               2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.                 t 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                           ( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 29 . 6 . 1989 , p . 9 .
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 ( 3 ) OJ No L 198 , 22 . 7. 1991 , p . 16.
judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
 1 , dismisses the appeal;
2, orders the appellant to pay the costs.
 f 1 ) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 June 1995
                                                                         in Case C-3 89/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main): Anton
                                                                               Dürbeck GmbH v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             Forstwirtschaft f 1 )
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                (Bananas — Import arrangements — Category of new
                                                                                operators)
                            of 1 June 1995
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/09 )
        in Case C-182/94 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic i 1 )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council                            (Language of the case: German)
            Directives 89/392/EEC and 91/368/EEC)
                             ( 95/C 189/08 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         In Case C-389/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                      of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                          (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main ( Germany), for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 In Case C-182/94: Commission of the European                            court between Anton Durbeck GmbH and Bundesamt fiir
 Communities (Agent: Antonio Aresu ) v . Italian Republic                Ernâhrung und Forstwirtschaft (Federal Office for Food


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2004 in Case C-428/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania): Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/11

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 27 January 2004
   in Case C-428/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania): Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Questions identical to questions on which the Court has already ruled)
   (2004/C 94/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-428/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Fratelli Costanzo SpA and Elettrica SpA — on the interpretation of Article 87 EC and 88 EC — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 27 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106 of Legislative Decree No 270/99 of 8 July 1999, introducing new rules for the extraordinary management of large-scale undertakings in a state of insolvency and maintaining the effect of a new State aid scheme which had not been notified to the Commission of the European Communities and had been declared incompatible with Community law, constitute themselves a new State aid scheme for the purposes of Article 87 EC and 88 EC.

               2.

               Questions in which the Court is asked to examine the compatibility with the common market of transitional rules such as those provided for by Article 106 of Legislative Decree No 270/99 are inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, by orders of that Court of 28 June 2001, in the cases of Belgian State v, respectively, (1) E. Van Calster and (2) F. Cleeren (Case C-261/01) and NV Openbaar Slachthuis (Case C-262/01)

text:
27.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 303/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van                     5.   If the answer to question 4 is in the negative, does
Beroep Antwerpen, by orders of that Court of 28 June                         Community law then permit the persons owing the
2001, in the cases of Belgian State v, respectively,                         contributions, as the beneficiaries of the aid, to raise a
(1) E. Van Calster and (2) F. Cleeren (Case C-261/01) and                    plea of lack of competence with regard to the Com-
          NV Openbaar Slachthuis (Case C-262/01)                             mission’s act whereby authorisation was given to
                                                                             implement the aid measures from which they benefit?
                (Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01)                           6.   If it is accepted that the respondents, as persons owing
                                                                             the contributions and/or as beneficiaries of the aid, are
                                                                             directly and individually concerned by the Commission’s
                       (2001/C 303/06)                                       act and may therefore lawfully raise a plea of lack of
                                                                             competence, has the Commission exceeded the limits of
                                                                             its competence in adopting its decision of 30 July 1996
                                                                             and infringed Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       EC Treaty?
European Communities by orders of the Hof van Beroep
Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) of 28 June 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of Belgian State v, respectively, (1) E. Van
Calster and (2) F. Cleeren (Case C-261/01) and NV Openbaar
Slachthuis (Case C-262/01), on the following questions:
1.   In the circumstances outlined above is a system of aid             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
     measures compatible with Community law, in particular              richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 18 May 2001 in
     with Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the EC              the case of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der
     Treaty, which, after its notification, is considered by the        Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungs-
     Commission on 30 July 1996 to be compatible with the               krankenkassen,4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftli-
     common market and under which the Member State                     chen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestellten-
     imposes in the general interest, with retroactive effect,          krankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen,
     contributions or charges:                                          7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against
                                                                               Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co
     —     to finance an animal health and production fund,
                                                                                (Case C-264/01)
     —     on natural and legal persons whose characteristics                                    (2001/C 303/07)
           are set out in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the
           abovementioned law of 23 March 1998, as amended
           by the Arbitragehof (Court of Arbitration) in its            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           judgment of 9 February 2000 in Cases Nos 1414,               European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
           1450, 1452, 1453, and 1454,                                  Düsseldorf of 18 May 2001, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. AOK
                                                                        Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
     —     because of the activities described in those articles        3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-
           which took place in the period from 1988 until               band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der
           21 May 1996 in which those aid measures had not              Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
           yet been approved?                                           Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
                                                                        against Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. on the
                                                                        following questions:
2.   (Solely in Case C-262/01) Has the Commission, by
     approving the aid measures established by the law of               1.   Is Article 81(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that the
     23 March 1998, also approved their retroactive effect?                  leading associations of statutory sickness funds of a
                                                                             Member State are to be regarded as associations of
                                                                             undertakings or, where a leading association is also
3.   Is the Commission’s Decision of 30 July 1996 merely in                  a direct provider of statutory sickness insurance, as
     the nature of an individual authorisation to a Member                   undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC
     State to implement the planned aid measures?                            when they jointly determine the applicable level of
                                                                             uniform fixed amounts for medicinal products in the
                                                                             Member State, where such amounts constitute the highest
4.   Are the persons owing the contributions directly and                    price at which the statutory sickness funds, who are
     individually concerned by the Commission’s act within                   required to provide benefits in kind to insured persons,
     the meaning of Article 230 (formerly Article 173) of the                will purchase and pay for medicinal products and thereby
     EC Treaty?                                                              limit their liability to insured persons?


title: Case F-10/06: Action brought on  5 January 2006  — Daniel André v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/36

         Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Daniel André v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-10/06)
   (2006/C 96/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Daniel André (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Jourdan, avocat)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 6 October 2005 refusing to pay the applicant, in respect of a service rendered for and at the request of the Court of Justice on 12 and 13 January 2005, the flat-rate allowance laid down by Article 7 of the Agreement on working conditions and financial terms for contract conference interpreters recruited by the institutions of the European Union;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision, namely to pay the sum of EUR 241.99 corresponding to the allowance which should have been paid, together with interest thereon from the date of request;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a contract conference interpreter, renders periodic services to various Interpretation services within the Community institutions. His services are supplied under contracts fixing the days and the place in which the interpretation is required. Those contracts are governed, as regards the financial aspects, by the Agreement on working conditions and financial terms for contract conference interpreters recruited by the institutions of the European Union.
   In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission decision refusing to pay him the flat-rate travel allowance laid down by Article 7 of that agreement and set out in detail in the ‘rules for implementing’ certain provisions of that agreement annexed thereto.
   In his application, the applicant challenges the defendant's interpretation of those provisions according to which the business trip must cause a loss of earnings in order for the allowance in question to be paid. Furthermore, the Commission was wrong to find that, as the applicant had already worked for a Community institution on 10 and 11 January 2005, 12 January 2005 was not the first day of his contract.
   The applicant claims that the text of the agreement does not, even impliedly, contain the additional conditions required by the defendant, which would wrongfully alter the scope of the agreement.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that the fact of there being a succession of contracts with one or more Community institutions does not enable it to deny him the benefit of the allowance in question.