title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-14/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, Abdelkader Dellas and Others v Premier ministre and Others (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 93/104/CE — Concept of  working time  — Scope — National legislation providing for a ceiling more favourable to workers, in particular as regards maximum weekly working time — Determination of working time in certain social establishments — On-call duty where the worker is required to be present at the workplace — Periods of inactivity on the part of the worker in the context of such duty — National system of calculation of hours of presence differentiated according to the intensity of the activity)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-14/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, Abdelkader Dellas and Others v Premier ministre and Others (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 93/104/CE - Concept of ‘working time’ - Scope - National legislation providing for a ceiling more favourable to workers, in particular as regards maximum weekly working time - Determination of working time in certain social establishments - On-call duty where the worker is required to be present at the workplace - Periods of inactivity on the part of the worker in the context of such duty - National system of calculation of hours of presence differentiated according to the intensity of the activity)
   (2006/C 36/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-14/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (France), made by decision of 3 December 2003, received at the Court on 15 January 2004, in the proceedings between Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail, Fédération nationale des syndicats des services de santé et des services sociaux CFDT, Fédération nationale de l'action sociale Force ouvrière and Premier ministre, Ministre des Affaires sociales, du Travail et de la Solidarité, in the presence of: Union des fédérations et syndicats nationaux d'employeurs sans but lucratif du secteur sanitaire, social et médico-social — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 December 2005, in which it rules:

               Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, with respect to on-call duty performed by workers in certain social and medico-social establishments during which they are required to be physically present at their workplace, lays down, for the purpose of calculating the actual working time, a system of equivalence such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where compliance with all the minimum requirements laid down by that directive in order to protect effectively the safety and health of workers is not ensured.

               Where national law fixes a ceiling more favourable to workers, in particular for maximum weekly working time, the relevant thresholds or ceilings for ascertaining whether the protective rules laid down by that directive are complied with are exclusively those set out in the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.


title: Case C-437/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2008 — Österreichische Salinen AG v Finanzamt Linz

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 3 October 2008 — Österreichische Salinen AG v Finanzamt Linz
   (Case C-437/08)
   (2009/C 19/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Österreichische Salinen AG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Linz
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law preclude a national authority — in order to avoid discriminating against foreign equity holdings which, unlike domestic (Austrian) equity holdings, are not tax exempt under legislation until the size of the equity holding reaches 25 % (under present legislation 10 %) — from applying the credit method because the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) has ruled that this outcome is closest to the (hypothetical) intention of the legislature but not simultaneously permitting a deduction to be carried forward to subsequent years or a tax credit to be given for a loss year with regard, firstly, to the corporation tax to be credited and, secondly, to the withholding tax to be credited?

               1.1

               If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: Does Community law preclude a refusal to allow a deduction to be carried forward or a tax credit to be given in the case of non-member country dividends?


C 233/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-289/00 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-210/01 ( 1)
                        (2002/C 233/32)                                                         (2002/C 233/35)
By order of 3 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 15 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
register of Case C-289/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling         removal from the register of Case C-210/01: Commission of
by the Corte d’appello di Genova): Fincantieri — Cantieri             the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi
and Others.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-458/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case   C-352/00 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/36)
                        (2002/C 233/33)
                                                                      By order of 19 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 register of Case C-458/01: Commission of the European
register of Case C-352/00: Italian Republic v Council of the          Communities v Italian Republic.
European Union.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-50/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-86/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 233/34)                                                         (2002/C 233/37)
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-86/01: Commission of the European Com-             the register of Case C-50/02: Commission of the European
munities v Republic of Austria.                                       Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                           (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 January 2015 in Case E-15/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products — Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012)

text:
               18.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/9

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 January 2015
   in Case E-15/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products — Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012)
   (2015/C 201/09)
   In Case E-15/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to that Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Act referred to at point 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to that Agreement, Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 13 July 1995 in Case C-391/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany)): Umberto Perrotta and Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse München (Social security - Unemployed person authorized to stay in a Member State other than the competent Member State - Grant of sickness benefits - Extension of the period of stay)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 248 / 1
                                                                         I
                                                                  (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                          (First Chamber)                                          and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                Community, as amended and updated by Council
                          of 13 July 1995                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83, requires the competent
in Case C-391/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                         institution to decide on a request for the extension of the
the Bundessozialgericht ( Germany)): Umberto Perrotta and                          period in respect of which sickness benefits are payable
          Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Miinchen (*)                                 even though that request has not been made expressly by
(Social security — Unemployedperson authorized to stay in                          the unemployed person but may be inferred from an
a Member State other than the competent Member State —                             application for cash sickness benefits lodged shortly
Grant of sickness benefits — Extension of the period of                            before the expiry of the period referred to in Article 25
                                  stay)                                            (1 ) of the Regulation with the sickness insurance
                                                                                institution of the place where the unemployed person
                             ( 95/C 248/01 )                                       has gone;
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            2 . in ascertaining whether there is a case of force majeure
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      within the meaning of Article 25 (4) of Regulation
          published in the European Court Reports)                                 (EEC) No 1408/71 , the competent institution must
                                                                                conduct an appraisal of the circumstances of the case in
                                                                                order to determine whether the unemployed person may
In Case C-391 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                       reasonably be required to return to the competent State,
 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundessozialgericht ( Germany )                          regard being had not only to the risks that his state of
 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                        health may significantly deteriorate or his chances of
 that court between Umberto Perrotta and Allgemeine                                recovery diminish as a result of the return journey, but
 Ortskrankenkasse Miinchen, on the interpretation of                               also to the severity of the ordeal which he would thereby
 Articles 25 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) and 69 ( 1 ) ( c ) of Council Regulation              be forced to endure, given, first, that the concept offorce
 (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                            majeure cannot be limited to the absolute impossibility
 social security schemes to employed persons, to                                   of returning to the competent State and, second, that
 self-employed persons and to members of their families                            physical ability to travel cannot as such preclude a
 moving within the Community ( 2 ), as amended and updated                         finding of force majeure .
 by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( 3 ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
 Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), and L. Sevon,                      ( ] ) OJ No C 274 , 12 . 10 . 1993 .
 Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General ; H. A. Riihl ,                      (2 ) OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7. 1971 , p. 2 .
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                     ( 3 ) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
 judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it rules:
  1 . Article 25 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
      of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 20 December 1996 in the case of Österreichische Unilever GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GesmbH (Case C-77/97)

text:
No C 108/ 18            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 4 . 97
      91 /689/EEC of     12     December    1991    on hazardous               procedure from being conducted under the Federal
      waste 0 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                 Procurement Law for awards of contracts for services,
      obligations under the EC Treaty,                                         and must such a national court conduct a review
                                                                               procedure in accordance with the fourth part of the
                                                                               Federal Procurement Law ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        3 . ( a ) Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 (with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/
                                                                                EEC ) to be classified as services coming under
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            Annex IA, category No 2 ( land transport services )
                                                                                and contracts for such services are thus to be
relied on in Case C-56/97 ( 2); the time-limit expired on
26 June 1995 .                                                                      awarded in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                                Titles II and IV of the Directive, or are they to be
                                                                                classified as services coming under Annex IB of
(') OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 20 .                                           Directive 92/50/EEC ( health ) with the result that
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                                          contracts for such services are to be awarded in
                                                                                accordance with the provisions of Articles 13 and
                                                                                14, or do those services fall outside the sphere of
                                                                                application of Directive 92/50/EEC ?
                                                                               ( b) Do the provisions of Articles 1 to 7, points 14 and
Reference        for    a preliminary ruling by the                                 16 , satisfy the preconditions laid down in the Van
Bundesvergabeamt by order of that court of 5 December                               Duyn Judgment on the direct applicability of a
1996 in the case of Walter Togel against                                            Community Directive, with the result that services
            Niederosterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse                               coming under Annex IB of the Directive are to be
                          ( Case C-76/97)
                                                                                awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or
                                                                                are the relevant provisions of the Directive for the
                            ( 97/C 108/34 )                                         services mentioned in Annex 1A capable of
                                                                                fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the
                                                                                abovementioned case ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                   4 . Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the EEC
 ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 5 December 1996,
                                                                               Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an obligation
received at the Court Registry on 20 February 1997, for a                      on the State to interfere in existing legal situations
preliminary ruling in the case of Walter Togel against                         concluded for an indefinite period or for several years
Niederosterreichische           Gebietskrankenkasse      on    the
                                                                                but which were not entered into in accordance with
 following questions:                                                           the abovementioned Directive ?
  1 . May an individual derive, from Article 1 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )           H OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
       and Article 2 ( 1 ) or other provisions of Council                ( 2 ) OJ No L 209, 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
       Directive 89/665/EEC ( ] ) on the coordination of the
       laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       relating to the application of review procedures to the
       award of public supply and public works contracts, a
       specific right to have review proceedings conducted
       before authorities or courts which comply with the
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary                 ruling from the
       provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of Directive 89/665/EEC,
                                                                         Handelsgericht Wien by order                of that court of
       which right is so sufficiently precise and specific that,         20 December 1996 in the case of Osterreichische Unilever
       in the event of non-transposition of the Directive in                  GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GesmbH
       question by the Member State, an individual may
       successfully assert that legal right against that Member                                      ( Case C-77/97)
       State in legal proceedings ?                                                                    ( 97/C 108/35
  2 . In conducting a review procedure on the basis of an
        individual's right, founded on Article 41 of Directive            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        92/50/EEC (2 ) in conjunction with Directive 89/665/              European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
        EEC, to the conduct of a review procedure, must a                 Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 20 December 1996 ,
        national court, analogous to the Federal Procurement              which was received at the Court Registry on 21 February
        Office, refuse to take cognizance of provisions of                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                           Osterreichische Unilever GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham
        national law such as Section 91 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) BVergG, which
        confer on the Federal Procurement Office powers of                 Markenartikel GesmbH on the following question:
        review only in the case of infringements of the Federal
        Procurement law and regulations adopted thereunder,                Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
        on the ground that those provisions preclude a feview              Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 19
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                 Action brought on 24 February 1997 by the Commission
to cosmetic products (*) preclude a national provision                  of the European Communities against the Federal
which contains prohibitions of statements in connection                                         Republic of Germany
with the marketing of cosmetic products which go beyond                                             ( Case C-83/97)
the restrictions contained in the Directive ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/38 )
(') OJ No L 262 , 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 24 February 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Societe Anonyme                   European Communities, with an address for service in
des Caves et des Producteurs Reunis de Roquefort                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
(Aveyron) and Others against the Commission of the                      the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                   European Communities                                 Communities, Wagner Centre, C 254, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-80/97 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 97/C 108/36 )
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
An action against the Commission of the European                               prescribed all the measures necessary in order to
Communities which had previously been brought before                           comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
the Court of First Instance was brought before the Court                        1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February                          wild fauna and flora ('), the Federal Republic of
 1997 by Societe Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs                           Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Reunis de Roquefort ( Aveyron ) and Others . That action,                       EC Treaty,
T-140/97, was the subject of an order declining
jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance referred it to             — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
 the Court of Justice in order that it might hear and                           costs .
 determine the claim for annulment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a                 Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit for transposition of the
 notice in Official Journal of the European Communities                  Directive expired on 5 June 1994 .
 No C 318 of 26 October 1996 , page 24 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992, p. 7 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .
 Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Bergpracht
 Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and others against the
           Commission of the European Communities                        Action brought on 28 February 1997 by the Commission
                            ( Case C-82/97)                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                              ( 97/C 108/37)
                                                                                ( Case C-88/ 97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/39 )
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
  the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by                         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
  Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG and others. The                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  action in question had previously been brought before the               on 28 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Court of First Instance under Case T-141/96 ; the Court of              Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
  First Instance made an order declining jurisdiction in the              of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
  case and transferred it to the Court of Justice for                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
  determination by the latter Court of the application for                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  annulment .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
   notice published in Official Journal of the European                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC
   Communities No C 336 of 9 November 1996, page 30.                             of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                                habitats and of wild fauna and flora ('), the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations


title: Case C-185/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — ANCC-Coop Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Consumatori and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — ANCC-Coop Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Consumatori and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others
   (Case C-185/13)
   2013/C 207/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ANCC-Coop Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Consumatori, ANCD Associazione Nazionale Cooperative Dettaglianti, Sviluppo Discount SpA, Centrale Adriatica Soc coop, Coop Consorzio Nord Ovest Società Consortile arl, Coop Italia Consorzio Nazionale non Alimentari Società Cooperativa, Coop Centro Italia Società Cooperativa, Tirreno Logistica srl, Unicoop Firenze Società Cooperativa, CONAD — Consorzio Nazionale Dettaglianti — Soc. Coop., Conad Centro Nord Soc. Coop, Commercianti Indipendenti Associati Soc. Coop, Conad del Tirreno Soc. Coop, Pac2000A Soc. Coop, Conad Adriatico Soc. Coop, Conad Sicilia Soc. Coop, Sicilconad Mercurio Soc. Coop

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Consulta Generale per l'Autotrasporto e la Logistica, Osservatorio sulle Attività di Autotrasporto, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato — Antitrust

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

               2.

               Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?

               3.

               Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?


title: Case T-299/10: Action brought on 15 July 2010 — Babcock Noell v European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/52

         Action brought on 15 July 2010 — Babcock Noell v European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy
   (Case T-299/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Babcock Noell GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Werner and C. Ebrecht, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare void the decisions of the defendant of 1 July 2010 in the procurement procedure F4E-2009-OPE-053 (MS-MG) to eliminate the applicant’s tenders — four separate offers for LOTs A, B, C and D — from the procedure;

               —

               declare void the decision of the defendant of 2 July 2010 in the procurement procedure F4E-2009-OPE-053 (MS-MG) to award the contract to the winning tenderer;

               —

               order the defendant to cancel the tender procedure F4E-2009-OPE-053 (MS-MG) and to organise a fresh tender procedure for the supply of ITER Toroidal Field Coils Winding Packs;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward seven pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the decisions eliminating the applicant’s bids from the procedure for non-compliance with the tender specifications are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and contain a manifest error of assessment, given that the bids did not contain substantial modifications (‘45 deviations’) to the model contract, as alleged by the defendant, but in fact only a list containing several proposals of issues to be negotiated. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the defendant breached the principles of good administrative practice and transparency in taking these decisions.
   Second, the applicant submits that the contested decisions are in breach of the general principle of equal treatment of all tenderers given that the defendant, in the course of the tender procedure, did not remedy the fact that the winning tenderer had a significant information advantage when formulating its tender, as a result of carrying out works for the defendant and other entities prior to the procedure. Furthermore, it claims that the contested decisions are in breach of the transparency principle, as the defendant did not make available to the applicant all information relating to the circumstances and the factual backgrounds for its decision not to reveal relevant information for the assessment of the existence of an information advantage of the winning tenderer.
   Third, the applicant argues that the contested decisions are in breach of Article 84 (a) of the Financial Regulation (1), given that the winning tenderer was subject to a conflict of interest with regard to the contract to be awarded.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the contested decisions are in breach of the provisions in Articles 93 and 100(2) (h) of the Implementing Rules (2), given that the decision of the defendant to award the contracts in the tender procedure F4E-2009-OPE-053 (MS-MG) were taken following an open procedure, instead of a competitive dialogue procedure or negotiated procedure.
   Fifth, it contends that the contested decisions are in breach of the provision of Article 23 (2) Directive 2004/18/EC (3) (which applies to this tender procedure by way of an analogy), given that the terms and conditions used in the model contract of the tender specifications in the procedure are contrary to the applicable Spanish law and qualify as having the effect of creating unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public procurement for competition.
   Sixth, the applicant submits that by making use of vague and unclear requirements in the technical specifications, the defendant has breached the principle of transparency and has disregarded the provision in Article 116(1) of the Implementing Rules.
   Finally, it claims that the defendant has breached the principles of transparency and equal treatment by applying award criteria in the tender specifications for the current procedure that are vague and non-transparent and do not refer to the subject of the contract, but to the qualification and selection of the tenderer.

      (1)  Decision of 22 October 2007 of the Governing Board of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the development of Fusion Energy adopting the Financial Regulation

      (2)  Decision of 22 October 2007 the Governing Board of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the development of Fusion Energy adopting the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation (Implementing Rules)

      (3)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114


title: Case T-408/12: Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/33

         Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee)
   (Case T-408/12)
   2012/C 355/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2012 in case R 1848/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ubee’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 7467111

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7130248 of the word mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42; Community trade mark No 7224603 of the figurative mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-512/11 and C-513/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland)) — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11) (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Maternity leave — Maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework Agreement on parental leave — Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child — Working and remuneration conditions — National collective agreement — Female workers having taken maternity leave after interruption of a period of unpaid parental leave — Refusal to pay a salary during the maternity leave)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland)) — Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry v Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry v Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11)
   (Joined Cases C-512/11 and C-513/11) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Maternity leave - Maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework Agreement on parental leave - Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child - Working and remuneration conditions - National collective agreement - Female workers having taken maternity leave after interruption of a period of unpaid parental leave - Refusal to pay a salary during the maternity leave)
   2014/C 93/02
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Työtuomioistuin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Terveys- ja sosiaalialan neuvottelujärjestö TSN ry (C-512/11), Ylemmät Toimihenkilöt YTN ry (C-513/11)

      Defendants: Terveyspalvelualan Liitto ry (C-512/11), Teknologiateollisuus ry, Nokia Siemens Networks Oy (C-513/11)

      Supported by: Mehiläinen Oy (C-512/11)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Työtuomioistuin — Interpretation of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) and Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Collective agreement under which workers are entitled to be paid their full salary during maternity leave on condition that they have been employed for at least three months continuously before the start of maternity leave — Salary not paid during maternity leave under that agreement to workers who take maternity leave immediately after unpaid child-care leave.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that provided for in the collective agreements at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which a pregnant worker who interrupts a period of unpaid parental leave within the meaning of that directive to take, with immediate effect, a maternity leave within the meaning of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) does not benefit from the maintenance of the remuneration to which she would have been entitled had that period of maternity leave been preceded by a minimum period of resumption of work.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-221/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Huvis v Council (Dumping — Imports of polyester staple fibres from Korea — Regulation terminating an interim review — Application of a different methodology to that used in the initial investigation — Requirement of a change in circumstances — Adjustment claimed for credit costs — Credit periods — Burden of proof — Principle of sound administration — Article 2(10)(b) and (g) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Huvis v Council
   (Case T-221/05) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of polyester staple fibres from Korea - Regulation terminating an interim review - Application of a different methodology to that used in the initial investigation - Requirement of a change in circumstances - Adjustment claimed for credit costs - Credit periods - Burden of proof - Principle of sound administration - Article 2(10)(b) and (g) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
   (2008/C 209/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Huvis Corp. (Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea,) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.- P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and K. Talabér Ricz, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for the annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ 2005 L 71, p. 1) and, second, for a declaration under Article 241 EC that the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) are inapplicable to the extent to which they support the disputed conclusions contained in Regulation No 428/2005
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan, to the extent to which the anti-dumping duty imposed on exports into the European Community of goods produced and exported by Huvis Corp. exceeds that which would be applicable if the ‘input’ method, used in the initial investigation, had been used to calculate the adjustment to the normal value for import charges and indirect taxes;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 70 % of the costs incurred by Huvis Corp.;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case T-401/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto v Commission
   (Case T-401/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/46
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto ry (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Pokela, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Paasivirta, F. Castillo de la Torre and P. Aalto, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto ry;

               2.

               Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that it refers to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as it concerns Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto’s costs;

               5.

               Orders Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto to bear one half of its own costs;

               6.

               Orders Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-284/07 P: Appeal brought on 24 July 2007 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case F-97/06, López Teruel v OHIM

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/57

         Appeal brought on 24 July 2007 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case F-97/06, López Teruel v OHIM
   (Case T-284/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/105)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (represented by I. de Medrano Caballero and E. Maurage, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara, Spain)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 May 2007 delivered in Case F-97/06;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the judgment of 22 May 2007, the annulment of which is sought in this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the decision of OHIM of 6 October 2005 refusing the application brought by Ms López Teruel for an Invalidity Committee to be convened.
   In support of the appeal for annulment of that judgment, OHIM raises three pleas.
   The first plea alleges infringement of statutory provisions relating to the convening of an Invalidity Committee, in that the CST equated the conditions for entitlement to an invalidity pension with the conditions for the convening of an Invalidity Committee. The appellant also disputes that there is a mandatory duty on the part of the Appointing Authority as regards convening such a committee and submits that the judgment of the CST is therefore vitiated by an error of interpretation.
   The second plea alleges infringement of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and an error of law as regards the assessment of the contested decision, in that the CST considered the decision of 6 October 2005 to be the only act adversely affecting an official and treated as a confirmatory act the decision of OHIM responding to the complaint made against that decision.
   Thirdly, OHIM submits that the CST clearly distorted the facts and the evidence in holding that the Office based its decision on the results of the examination of the applicant by an independent doctor on 18 October 2005.


title: Case T-247/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2014  — Argo Group International Holdings v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ARIS — Earlier Community figurative mark ARISA ASSURANCES S.A. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Coexistence of earlier marks on the market — Principle of American law known as the ‘Morehouse defense’  — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2014 — Argo Group International Holdings v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS)
   (Case T-247/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ARIS - Earlier Community figurative mark ARISA ASSURANCES S.A. - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Coexistence of earlier marks on the market - Principle of American law known as the ‘Morehouse defense’ - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 202/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Hoy, S. Levine and N. Edbrooke, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arisa Assurances SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: H. Bock, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 March 2012 (Case R 193/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Arisa Assurances SA and Argo Group International Holdings Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Argo Group International Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-149/16: Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/56

      Action brought on 11 April 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
      (Case T-149/16)
      (2016/C 211/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme;

                  —

                  order the Commission to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court, within three months from the date of the judgment;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                              —

                              The assessment of the applicant’s proposal is incorrect as regards the award criteria of relevance, impact and quality. With a proper evaluation against those award criteria, the proposal should have been selected for EU co-funding.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment

                              —

                              The Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment in the contested decision because it has not selected the applicant’s proposal, while it has selected other similar proposals related to emission abatement technologies.


title: Case T-239/12: Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/13

         Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)
   (Case T-239/12)
   2012/C 209/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (Nashik, India) (represented by: R. Egerer, D. Jochim and A. Kolb, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 in Case R 2546/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jyoti Ceramic Industries

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘ZIECON’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 40 (application No 8 272 271)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DeguDent GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘CERCON’ for goods in Classes 5, 9 and 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and registration refused
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rules 50(1) and 19(1) and (3) of the implementing regulation


title: Case C-442/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV (Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Insured persons’ freedom to choose a lawyer — Clause in the standard terms and conditions of a contract guaranteeing legal assistance in any inquiry or proceedings by one of the insurer’s employees — Costs relating to legal assistance provided by an external legal adviser reimbursed only where the insurer decides that it is necessary to entrust handling of the case to an external legal adviser)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Jan Sneller v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
   (Case C-442/12) (1)

   (Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Insured persons’ freedom to choose a lawyer - Clause in the standard terms and conditions of a contract guaranteeing legal assistance in any inquiry or proceedings by one of the insurer’s employees - Costs relating to legal assistance provided by an external legal adviser reimbursed only where the insurer decides that it is necessary to entrust handling of the case to an external legal adviser)
   2014/C 9/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jan Sneller

      Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Insured person’s freedom to choose a lawyer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as precluding a legal expenses insurer which stipulates in its insurance contracts that legal assistance will in principle be provided by its employees from also providing that the costs of legal assistance provided by a lawyer or legal representative chosen freely by the insured person will be covered only if the insurer takes the view that the handling of the case must be subcontracted to an external lawyer;

               2.

               The answer to question 1 will not differ depending on whether or not legal assistance is compulsory under national law in the inquiry or proceedings concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case F-48/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 October 2008 — Ortega Serrano v Commission (Staff case — Manifestly inadmissible — Impossible for applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party — Legal aid — Application to intervene)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/73

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 October 2008 — Ortega Serrano v Commission
   (Case F-48/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Manifestly inadmissible - Impossible for applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party - Legal aid - Application to intervene)
   (2009/C 44/129)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Ortega Serrano (Cádiz, Spain) (represented by: A. Ortega Serrano, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Selection Board's decision in competition EPSO/AD/26/05, refusing to enter the applicant in the reserve list, and fixing of a new date for the oral test.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Ortega Serrano's alternative claim, that he should be allowed to put his application in order, is dismissed.

               3.

               Mr Ortega Serrano is ordered to pay the costs.

               4.

               It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene.

               5.

               The European Data Protection Supervisor is to bear the costs relating to his application to intervene.

               6.

               The application for legal aid in Case F-48/08 AJ Ortega Serrano v Commission is dismissed.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 52.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-166/98: Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. rl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the market in wine — Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 — Community aid — Action for annulment — Action for declaration of failure to act — Action for compensation)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 23 November 2004
   in Case T-166/98: Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. rl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common organisation of the market in wine - Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 - Community aid - Action for annulment - Action for declaration of failure to act - Action for compensation)
   (2005/C 31/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-166/98: Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. rl, established in Dolianova (Italy), Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. rl, established in Senorbì (Italy), Cantina sociale Marmilla – Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. rl, established in Sanluri (Italy), Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. rl, established in Santa Maria La Palma (Italy), Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. rl Monti-Sassari, established in Monti (Italy), represented by C. Dore and G. Dore, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. Alves Vieira, then A. Alves Vieira and L. Visaggio, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – action under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) for annulment of the Commission's letter of 31 July 1998 refusing to pay directly to the applicants aid for preventive distillation for the wine year 1982/1983 or, under Article 175 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232 EC) for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act or, in the further alternative, under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC) for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's conduct – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzàlez, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants, following the insolvency of Distilleria Agricola Industriale de Terralba, as a result of the lack of a scheme guaranteeing, under the rules laid down in Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 laying down provisions concerning preventive distillation for the 1982/83 wine year, payment of the Community aid provided for in that regulation to the producers concerned;

               2.

               Orders the parties to notify the Court, within four months of delivery of this judgment, of the amount of compensation fixed by mutual agreement;

               3.

               In the event that no agreement is reached, orders the parties to inform the Court, within the same period, of the figures they propose.

      (1)  OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Case C-156/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2009 — Finanzamt Leverkusen v Verigen Transplantation Service International AG

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2009 — Finanzamt Leverkusen v Verigen Transplantation Service International AG
   (Case C-156/09)
   2009/C 180/43
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Leverkusen

      Respondent: Verigen Transplantation Service International AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 28bF of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           cartilage material (‘biopsy material’) which is taken from a human being and entrusted to an undertaking for the purpose of cell multiplication and subsequent return as an implant for the patient concerned constitutes ‘movable tangible property’ for the purposes of this provision,

                           (b)

                           the removal of joint cartilage cells from the cartilage material and the subsequent cell multiplication constitute ‘work’ on movable tangible property for the purposes of this provision,

                           (c)

                           the service has been supplied to a customer ‘identified for valued added tax purposes’ simply if the value added tax identification number is stated in the invoice of the supplier of the service, without any express written agreement as to its use having been made?

               2.

               If any of the above questions is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted as meaning that the removal of the joint cartilage cells from the cartilage material taken from a human being and the subsequent cell multiplication constitute the ‘provision of medical care’ where the cells obtained from the cell multiplication are reimplanted in the donor?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/39

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 246/66
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered the partial removal of the joined cases from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 08.03.2008.


title: Case T-329/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/22

         Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
   (Case T-329/12)
   2012/C 273/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that the Council, in including the name of the applicant in the lists annexed to the contested measures, has:

               —

               committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled;

               —

               failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists;

               —

               violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and

               —

               infringed without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation and to private and family life.


title: Case T-389/12 R: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — EDF v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Concentrations — Electricity market — Decision authorising a concentration operation subject to compliance with certain commitments — Refusal to grant the postponement of the deadline set for fulfilling those commitments — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/35

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — EDF v Commission
   (Case T-389/12 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Concentrations - Electricity market - Decision authorising a concentration operation subject to compliance with certain commitments - Refusal to grant the postponement of the deadline set for fulfilling those commitments - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)
   2012/C 366/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris (France)) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and S. Noë, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures in relation to Commission Decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant the postponement of the deadline fixed for fulfilling some of its commitments set out in Decision C(2009) 9059 of 12 November 2009, which authorises the concentration operation whereby Électricité de France was to acquire exclusive control of the assets of Segebel (Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/Segebel).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-491/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 14 August 2017 — Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L. v Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 14 August 2017 — Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L. v Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)
   (Case C-491/17)
   (2017/C 347/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L.

      Respondent: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is it a requirement of Article 11.3 (1) that the injured person's claim against the policy holder/insured involves a matter relating to insurance in the sense that it raises a question about the validity or effect of the policy?

               2)

               Is it a requirement of Article 11.3 that there is a risk of inconsistent judgments unless joinder is permitted?

               3)

               Does the court have a discretion whether or not to permit joinder of a claim which falls within Article 11.3?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1)


C 219/14               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-51/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-132/02 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/36)                                                    (2002/C 219/37)
By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                By order of 29 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-51/02: Commission of the European            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v Ireland.                                              register of Case C-132/02: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case T-18/10: Action brought on 11 January 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami e.a. v Parliament and Council

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/41

         Action brought on 11 January 2010 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami e.a. v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-18/10)
   2010/C 100/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada), Nattivak Hunters & Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada) Pangnirtung Hunters ‘and Trappers’ Organisation (Pangnirtung, Canada), Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada), David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada), Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada), Efstathios Andreas Agathos (Athens, Greece), Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada), Ta Ma Su Seal Products (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada), Fur Institute of Canada (Ottowa, Canada), NuTan Furs, Inc (Catalina, Canada), Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland (ICC) (Nuuk, Canada), Johannes Egede (Nuuk, Canada), Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk, Canada) (represented by: J. Bouckaert, M. van der Woude and H. Viaene, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul Regulation No 1007/2009 pursuant to Article 263 TFUE;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs;

               —

               order the defendants to pay their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicants, Inuit seal hunters and trappers, individuals in another way engaged in other activities involving the seal products, organisations representing the interests of Inuit as well as other individuals and companies active in processing of seal products, seek the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (1) providing for restrictions on the placing on the market of the European Union of the seal products.
   The applicants put forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicants argue that the European Parliament and the Council erred in law when using Article 95 EC (currently Article 114 TFEU) as the legal basis for adopting contested regulation. In this regard, the applicants submit that established case law of the European Court of Justice confirms that measures referred to in Article 95 EC must genuinely have as their object the improvement of the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market and that the mere fact that they have a bearing on its establishment is not sufficient to make Article 95 EC applicable. In the applicants ‘opinion, the contested regulation does not result in such improvement as required by the European Courts’ case law but, on the contrary, it will effectively eliminate any possibility of an internal market in seal products covered by the regulation’s scope.
   Second, the applicants contend that the defendants erred in law by infringing the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as enshrined in Article 5 TEU and further elaborated on in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. They claim that the defendants do not demonstrate why intervention at the European Union level is required. The applicants point out that only two Member States had already introduced a ban on seal products. Furthermore, they argue that, even if action at European Union level was to meet the subsidiarity requirement, less intrusive measures would have sufficed to meet the stated goals of the regulation. The applicants contest the fact that the defendants opted for a near total ban on seal products, rather than adopting less restrictive alternatives, such as labelling requirements.
   Third, the applicants claim that the contested regulation unduly limits the subsistence possibilities of the applicants, relegating their economic activities to traditional hunting methods and subsistence. They contend that, despite this direct interference with their daily way of life, they have never been heard by the Council nor by the Parliament. Moreover, the applicants submit that the defendants did not weigh the interests of the Inuit Community in surviving in the Arctic against the moral convictions of some citizens in the Union and therefore violated the Article I of Protocol No I to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 8 ECHR, read in light of Articles 9 and l0 ECHR and as explained in the Court’s case law, as well as their fundamental right to be heard.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36


title: Case T-185/04: Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

         Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-185/04)
   (2004/C 217/40)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, established in Paris, represented by Muriel Antoine-Lalance, lawyer.
   Jacqueline Baudon was also a party to the proceedings in the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2004 (Case R 0039/2002-4) relating to the opposition procedure between Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie and Madame Jacqueline Baudon;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark subject of invalidity application:

               Word mark AROMACOSMETIQUE – Application No 886.335, for products entered in classification 3 (cosmetic, beauty and make-up preparations)

               Owner of the mark subject of invalidity application:

               The applicant company

               Cancellation application:

               Mme Jacqueline Baudon, holder of the French word marks ‘AROMACOSMETIQUE’, No 92/408 786, for services in classification 42, and No 98/739 256, for products in classifications 3 and 5

               Decision of the cancellation division:

               Cancellation of the Community trade mark AROMACOSMETIQUE allowed due to the risk of confusion with the earlier national trade mark No 98/739 256

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Articles 61, 62, 73 and 79 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.


title: Case C-437/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)) — X (Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Registration duty — Similar domestic products — Neutrality of the tax between imported used automobile vehicles and similar vehicles already present on the national market)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/18

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)) — X
   (Case C-437/12) (1)

   (Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Registration duty - Similar domestic products - Neutrality of the tax between imported used automobile vehicles and similar vehicles already present on the national market)
   2014/C 52/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

   X

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 110 TFEU — Domestic taxation — National legislation imposing a registration levy at the time of the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Amount of the levy based, as from 2010, on CO2 emissions — Vehicle first used on the roads outside the Netherlands in 2006 and registered in 2010 for use within national territory.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               For the purpose of applying Article 110 TFEU, the similar domestic products which are comparable to a used vehicle such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was first put into service before 1 February 2008 and was imported and registered in the Netherlands in 2010, are the vehicles already present on the Netherlands market whose characteristics are closest to those of the vehicle in question.

               2.

               Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a tax, such as the passenger-car and motorcycle tax (belasting personenauto’s en motorrijwielen) as in force in 2010, if and in so far as the amount of that tax levied on used imported vehicles upon their registration in the Netherlands exceeds the lowest residual amount of BPM incorporated into the value of similar used vehicles already registered in that same Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Case F-39/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Goddijn v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/27

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Goddijn v Europol
   (Case F-39/09)
   2009/C 167/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Jaqueline Goddijn (Breda, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the applicant’s objections to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-528/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz (Request for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 78/660/EEC — Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company — Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/14

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Mömax Logistik GmbH v Bundesamt für Justiz
   (Case C-528/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 78/660/EEC - Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company - Application of the rules on the publication of accounts to companies governed by the law of one Member State and forming part of a group whose parent company is governed by the law of another Member State)
   2014/C 93/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Bonn

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesamt für Justiz

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU and Article 57(1) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Right of the Member States not to apply to the dependent companies of any group governed by their national laws the provisions of Directive 78/660/EEC concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts where the dominant company of the group is subject to the laws of a Member State — Legislation of a Member State providing for that possibility where the dominant company is subject to the laws of that Member State and precluding it where it is subject to the laws of another Member State.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 57 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006, must be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State which exempts a subsidiary undertaking governed by the law of that State from the provisions of that directive concerning the content, auditing and publication of annual accounts only if the parent company is also governed by the law of that State.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case F-9/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2012 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — Refusal of promotion — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/91

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-9/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2012 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 048/102)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, firstly, for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 as regards the sections concerning ‘appraisal’, ‘assessment’ and ‘setting of objectives for 2013’ and in so far as it does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and, next, annulment of the note to staff No 722 of 5 December 2012 and the 2012 Guide to Staff Appraisal Procedure or a declaration that they are inapplicable and, secondly, a finding of psychological harassment of the applicant. Finally, application for an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 23 October 2013;

               2.

               Holds that there is no need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of the staff report relating to 2012 and all connected, consequent and prior acts;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr D Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 44.