title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht, Arnhem, by judgment of that court of 4 March 1996 in the case of Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie (Case C-67/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 133/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret                   he cannot provide work for the pregnant employee,
by order of that court of 20 February 1996 in the cases of                    despite the fact that the latter is not unfit for work ,
Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark
(HK ), acting on behalf of Berit Høj Pedersen, v. the                 and in situations 1 to 3 and 6 the State guarantees that the
Fællesforening for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (FDB ),                   pregnant employee will receive the same rate of benefit as
acting on behalf of Kvickly Skive; HK, acting on behalf of            she would receive if on sick leave, whereas in situations 4
Bettina Andresen, v. Dansk Tandlægeforening, acting on                and 5 no State benefit is received, and the employer,
behalf ofJørgen B agner, a dental practitioner; HK, acting on         moreover, is required under national legislation to provide
behalf of Tina Pedersen, v. Dansk Tandlægeforening, acting            full pay during illness ?
on behalf of Jørgen Rasmussen, a dental practitioner; and
Kristelig Funktionær-Organisation, acting on behalf of Pia            (') Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
Sørensen v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of                     approximation of the laws of the Member States of relating to
                 Hvitfeldt Guld og Sølv ApS.                                the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women
                         ( Case C-66/96 )                                   ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).
                                                                      ( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
                           ( 96/C 133/35 )                                  implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
                                                                            women as regards access to employment, vocational training
                                                                            and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14. 2 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      1976 , p . 40 ).
European Communities by order of the So- og Handelsret                ( 3 ) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
( Maritime and Commercial Court) of 20 February 1996 ,                      introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 March                        safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of ( 1 ) Handels- og            have recently given birth or are breastfeeding ( tenth individual
Kontorfunktionasrernes Forbund i Danmark (Union of                          Directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive
Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark ) ( HK ),                      89/39 1 /EEC ) ( OJ No L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992, p . 1 ).
acting on behalf of Berit Hoj Pedersen, Bettina Andresen
and Tina Pedersen, v. the Fadlesforening for Danmarks
Brugsforeninger (Joint Association of Danish Cooperative
Societies ) ( FDB ), acting on behalf of Kvickly Skive, and
Dansk Tandlsegeforening ( Danish Association of Dental
Practitioners ), acting on behalf of Jorgen Bagner and Jorgen         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht,
Rasmussen, dental practitioners, and ( 2 ) Kristelig                  Arnhem, by judgment of that court of 4 March 1996
Funktionasr-Organisation ( Christian Commercial and                   in the case of Albany International BV v. Stichting
Clerical Employees ' Organization ), acting on behalf of Pia                         Bedrij fspensioenfonds Textielindustrie
Sorensen, v. Dansk Handel & Service ( Danish Commercial
                                                                                Case C-67/96 )
and Service-Industries Association ), acting on behalf of
Hvitfeldt Guld og Solv ApS, on the following question:                                              ( 96/C 133/36 )
Does Community law, including Article 119 of the EC                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Treaty and Directives 75/117/EEC ( 1 ), 76/207/EEC (2) and            European Communities by a judgment of the
92/85/EEC ( 3 ), preclude national legislation from exempting         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court), Arnhem, of 4 March
employers from the provision of pay to pregnant employees             1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
in cases where :                                                      11 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                      Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds
1 , the absence is attributable to the fact that the pregnancy        Textielindustrie on the following questions :
     substantially aggravates an illness that is otherwise
     unconnected to the pregnancy;                                    ( a ) Is an occupational pension scheme within the meaning
                                                                               of Article 1 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Wet betreffende verplichte
2 , the absence is attributable to an illness caused by the
                                                                              Deelneming in een Bedrijfspensioenfonds ( Law on
     pregnancy ;
                                                                               Compulsory Participation in an Occupational Pension
3 , the absence is attributable to the fact that the pregnancy                 Scheme ) an undertaking within the meaning of
     shows a morbid development and that continued work                       Articles 85 , 86 or 90 of the EC Treaty ?
     would create a risk for the health of the woman or her
     unborn child;                                                    ( b ) If so, is the fact of making membership of the
                                                                               occupational pension scheme for industrial
4, the absence is attributable to general pregnancy-related                    undertakings compulsory a measure adopted by a
     inconveniences that occur in any normal pregnancy and,                   Member State which nullifies the useful effect of the
     moreover, do not result in incapacity for work;                          competition rules applicable to undertakings ?
5 , the absence results from a medical opinion intended to            (c ) If question ( b ) must be answered in the negative, can
     protect the unborn child but which is not based on an                     other circumstances render compulsory membership
     actual morbid condition or special risks for the unborn                   incompatible with Article 90 of the Treaty, and if so,
     child;                                                                   which ?
6 , the absence is attributable to the fact that the employer,
     on the basis of the pregnancy alone, takes the view that


title: Case C-396/99: Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sección                    Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission
Tercera de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo by order                of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
of that court of 22 September 1999 in the case of                                                      lic
Canal Satélite Digital S.L. and Administración General del
Estado, the other party to the proceedings being DTS
           Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A.                                            (Case C-396/99)
                         (Case C-390/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/28)
                           (2000/C 6/27)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
European Communities by order of 22 September 1999 from                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
the Sección Tercera de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo            13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Com-
(Third Section of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court),              munities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillou and Barry
which was received at the Court Registry on 12 October 1999,            Doherty, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Canal Satéllite Digital         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
S.L. and Administración General del Estado, the other party to         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the proceedings being DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital
S.A. on the following questions:
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the
    provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of Directive 95/47/EC of the
    European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October                — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
    1995 on the use of standards for the transmission of                    down all the measures necessary in order to comply with
    television signals (1), preclude national rules which impose            Article 2(1) of Directive 96/2/EC (1) with regard to mobile
    on operators of conditional-access services, as a condition             and personal communications, in conjunction with the
    of their being permitted to market apparatus, equipment,                second and third paragraphs of Article 3a of Directive
    decoders or systems for the digital transmission and                    90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecom-
    reception of television signals by satellite — including                munications services, as amended by Directive 96/2/EC,
    those lawfully manufactured or marketed in other Member                 the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    States — the following cumulative requirements:                         under the Treaty and those directives;
    — the obligation to register details of themselves and of
         the aforementioned apparatus, equipment, decoders              — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
         and systems in a compulsory official register, such
         registration being conditional not only on a solemn
         declaration by the operator concerned that he has
         complied with the technical specifications, but also on        Pleas in law and main arguments
         a prior technical report from the national authorities
         on compliance with the technical and other require-
         ments laid down in the national legislation;                   The Member States are required by the binding character of
                                                                        the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
    — the obligation, following completion of the registration          paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
         procedure referred to above, to obtain the appropriate         adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
         administrative ‘certification’ attesting to compliance         law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
         with the aforementioned technical and other require-           and to communicate those measures immediately to the
         ments laid down in the national legislation?                   Commission.
2. Does Article 59 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
    Articles 1 to 5 of Directive 95/47/EC, preclude national
    legislation which imposes the administrative requirements           Up until now the Hellenic Republic has not adopted the
    set out above on operators of conditional-access services?          measures necessary in order to implement fully Article 2(1) of
                                                                        Directive 96/2/EC and the second and third paragraphs of
3. Is a national legislative provision which prescribes com-            Article 3a of Directive 90/388/EEC, as amended by Directive
    pliance with such requirements to be regarded as a                  96/2/EC, which had to be implemented no later than 1 January
    ‘technical regulation’ for the purposes of the duty to              1998; it has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    notify the Commission referred to in Council Directive              Treaty and those directives.
    83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure
    for the provision of information in the field of technical
    standards and regulations? (2)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59.
(1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 109 of 26.4.1993, p. 8.


title: Case C-320/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly AEM SpA v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Aid granted to public utilities — Tax exemptions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing — Legal interest — Article 87 EC — Concept of ‘aid’ — Article 88 EC — Concept of ‘new aid’ — Article 10 EC — Duty of loyal cooperation — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 1 and 14 — Lawfulness of a recovery order — Principle of legal certainty — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — A2A SpA, formerly AEM SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-320/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Article 10 EC - Duty of loyal cooperation - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Principle of legal certainty - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 49/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: A2A SpA, formerly AEM SpA (represented by: A. Santa Maria, A. Giardina and G. Pizzonia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-301/02 AEM v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

               2.

               Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2004 in Case C-448/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/44/EC)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 1 July 2004
   in Case C-448/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/44/EC)
   (2004/C 217/19)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-448/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v French Republic (Agents: G de Bergues and A. Bodard-Hermant) — application for a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 September 1996 in Case C-11/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Directive 89/552/EEC - Transmission of programmes by cable)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 354/3
Court], Amsterdam, tor a preliminary ruling in the                  coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,
proceedings pending before that court between Z.                    regulation or administrative action in Member States
Taflan-Met, S. Altun-Baser, E. Andal-Bugdayci and Bestuur           concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, and between O. Akol and            ( OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p. 23 ), in particular Articles 2 , 14 and
Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging, on the           15 thereof — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 of Decision No 3/80 of         Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the                 Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
application of the social security schemes of the Member            Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
States of the European Communities to Turkish workers               ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
and members of their families ( OJ No C 110 , 1983 , p. 60 ),       Ragnemalm          and      L. Sevón,   Judges;      C. O. Lenz,
the Court composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,         Advocate-General ;         D. Louterman-Hubeau,         Principal
D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and G.            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C.            10 September 1996 , in which it :
Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and
J. L. Murray, Judges, Advocate-General : A. La Pergola,
Registrar: H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, has given a        1 . declares that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
judgment on 10 September 1996 in which it rules :                        its obligations under Council Directive 89/552/EEC of
                                                                         3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
                                                                         provisions laid down by law, regulation or
1 . Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of                       administrative action in Member States concerning the
     19 September 1980 on the application of the social                  pursuit oftelevision broadcasting activities, in particular
     security schemes of the Member States of the European               Articles 2 , 14 and 15 thereof,
     Communities to Turkish workers and members of their
     families entered into force on the date on which it was             — as regards the French Community, by maintaining,
     adopted, namely 19 September 1980, and has been                         in the French-speaking region, a system of prior
     binding on the Contracting Parties since then.                          authorization for the retransmission by cable of
                                                                             television broadscasts emanating from other
                                                                             Member States;
2 . So long as the supplementary measures essential for
     implementing Decision No 3/80 have not been adopted
     by the Council, Articles 12 and 13 of that decision do              — as regards the French Community, by maintaining,
     not have direct effect in the territory of the Member                   in the French-speaking region, a system of express,
     States and are therefore not such as to entitle individuals             conditional       prior    authorization     for      the
     to rely on them before the national courts.                             retransmission by cable of television broadcasts
                                                                             emanating from other Member States which contain
                                                                             commercial advertising or teleshopping programmes
(') OJ No C 370 , 21 . 12 . 1994 .                                           especially intended for viewers in the French
                                                                              Community;
                                                                         — as regards the Flemish community, by maintaining,
                                                                             in the Dutch-speaking region, a system of prior
                                                                             authorization for the retransmission by cable of
                                                                              television broadcasts emanating from other Member
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         States;
                    of 10 September 1996
in    Case    C-11/95 : Commission of the              European          — as regards the bilingual Metropolitan Region of
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 )                            Brussels, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             and administrative measures necessary to comply
 (Directive 89/552/EEC — Transmission ofprogrammes by                         with Article 2 (2) of Directive 89/552;
                              cable)
                         ( 96/C 354/05 )                                 — as regards the French Community, by failing to
                                                                              adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
                (Language of the case: French)                                measures necessary to comply fully with Articles 14
                                                                              and 15 of Directive 89/552 ;
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
In Case C-11 /95 : Commission of the European                        3 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Communities ( Agent: Pieter van Nuffel ) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder, assisted by Alain                     (') OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
Berenboom ) — application for a declaration that the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
 Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the


title: Case T-333/99: Action brought on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund Nielsen against the European Central Bank

text:
18.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/29
The applicant also criticizes what it considers to be an                Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to regis-
erroneous association made by the Commission between the                before the Board of            ter
principles of solidarity and redistribution within the public           Appeal:
health system, on the one hand, and requests to be supplied
by third-party, independent operators, on the other. In its             Pleas in law:                  — infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
view, extending the scope of distribution as a fundamental
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
element in the principle of solidarity to the point of demanding
sacrifices on the part of third-party suppliers is tantamount to                                       — misapplication of Article 7
placing a charge on the latter which is both discriminatory and                                            (1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
unjustified.                                                                                No 40/94
(1) Joined Cases C-159 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre [1993] ECR
    I-637.
                                                                        Action brought on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund
                                                                                Nielsen against the European Central Bank
Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi
HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Office for Har-
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and                                              (Case T-333/99)
                             Designs)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/65)
                         (Case T-331/99)
                          (2000/C 79/64)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                  (Language of the case: German)                        before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund Nielsen, Frank-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          furt-am-Main, Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regi-
Market (Trade marks and Designs) was brought before the                 na Steiner and Silvia Mittländer of the Frankfurt am Main Bar,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld                    Aloyse Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de
GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany (formerly Stora Carbonless Paper               Banques et d’Assurances, 29 Avenue Monterey, Luxembourg.
GmbH), represented by Ulrike Alice Ulrich, of Cohausz &
Florack, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Ernest T. Freylinger S.A., 234 Route d’Arlon,          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Luxembourg.
                                                                        1. Declare that his dismissal under Article 41 of the Con-
                                                                            ditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Bank (hereinafter ‘the CoE’), is ineffective and that the
                                                                            employment relationship between the applicant and the
— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                        defendant was not dissolved by the dismissal but continues
     8 September 1999 in Case R 175/1999-3 and order the                    to subsist as though notice had not been given;
     Office to publish the Community trade mark application in
     accordance with Article 10 of the Trade Mark Regulation;
                                                                        2. Order the defendant to continue to employ the applicant as
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     a documentalist on the contractual terms of employment;
                                                                        3. Order the defendant to pay the basic salary retained under
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Article 44 of the CoE;
Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘Giroform’ — appli-             4. Declare the decision of the Management Committee, which
                              cation no 533406                              was notified to the applicant by letter of 9 November
                                                                            1999, invalid;
Goods or services:            Paper, cardboard and goods main-
                              ly from these materials included          5. Declare that the disciplinary proceedings brought against
                              in Class 16; printed matter                   the applicant under Article 43 of the CoE were unlawful.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By his action the applicant is essentially seeking a declaration        The applicant in the present case, a non-profit-making chari-
that his dismissal, which was pronounced in the course of               table organisation whose object is the social, working, political,
disciplinary proceedings, was unlawful.                                 sporting and cultural integration of all physically, psychologi-
                                                                        cally and sensorially handicapped persons, challenges the
                                                                        Commission’s refusal to initiate infringement proceedings
In support the applicant advances the following arguments in
                                                                        against the Kingdom of Spain with regard to the refusal to
relation in particular to the disciplinary proceedings:
                                                                        authorise the holding of a daily nationwide lottery draw under
                                                                        the auspices of the applicant organisation with the purpose of
— The proceedings were unlawful since the jurisdiction of
                                                                        subventing its activities.
    the ECB conferred under Article 36 of the ESCB/ECB
    Statute to lay down employment conditions does not
    encompass responsibility for laying down disciplinary               The refusal is allegedly based on the fact that in Spain the only
    proceedings.                                                        games to be authorised are those organised by the Organismo
                                                                        National de Loterı́as y Apuestas del Estado (National lotteries
— The applicant was not given an adequate hearing.                      and betting body) and the Organización Nacional de Ciegos
                                                                        Españoles (National Spanish organisation for the blind).
— The contested decision is based on a failure to comply with
    duties as to conduct which were never communicated to               In the applicant’s view, such a monopoly is contrary to
    the applicant as such and which furthermore are not                 Community law on the freedom of competition.
    binding on him.
— The defendant breached prohibitions on the collection of
    evidence and is relying on erroneous findings of fact.
— The applicant and his representative were placed at a
    disadvantage by reason of the fact that the proceedings
    were conducted in German.                                           Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline
                                                                           Schuerer against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-338/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/67)
Action brought on 25 November 1999, by the Organiza-                                       (Language of the case: German)
ción Impulsora del Discapacitado (OID) against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                         (Case T-334/99)                                Communities on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline Schuerer,
                                                                        Munich, Germany, represented by Hermann J. Winzen, of the
                          (2000/C 79/66)                                Munich Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Marco Steil, 12 Rue d’Anvers, Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that, by fixing the applicant’s pension weighting,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             as from 3 October 1990, the day on which Berlin became
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             the capital of Germany, according to the cost of living in
European Communities on 25 November 1999 by the Organ-
                                                                             Bonn rather than the Berlin cost index, the defendant has
ización Impulsora del Discapacitado, whose registered office is
                                                                             infringed the Treaty of the European Communities;
in Madrid, represented by Javier Gallego Sánchez, of the
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 55 Blvd. de la Pétrusse.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul the decision of the European Commission’s decision              The applicant, who was formerly an official of the Commission,
    of 19 October 1999 and order the European Commission                relies principally on the pleas in law already advanced in
    to initiate infringement proceedings against the Kingdom            Case T-81/99 against the Commission.
    of Spain for infringing Community law, or, in the alterna-
    tive, declare the Spanish legislation in question to be
    contrary to the Treaty on the European Union.


title: Case C-67/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/5

         Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-67/06)
   (2006/C 96/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Amparo Alcover San Pedro, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ No L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.


title: Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Italy v Commission (Language regime — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Choice of second language from three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15) (1)

   ((Language regime - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 392/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and G. Gattinara (Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15) and F. Simonetti (Case T-17/15), then G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and V. Čepaitė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-353/14, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14, to constitute a reserve list for administrators (OJ 2014 C 74 A, p. 4), and, in Case T-17/15, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/294/14 to constitute a reserve list of administrators in the field of data protection for the European Data Protection Supervisor (OJ 2014 C 391 A, p. 1.)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Joins Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2)

               Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14, to constitute a reserve list for administrators and the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/294/14 to constitute a reserve list of administrators in the field of data protection for the European Data Protection Supervisor;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Italian Republic;

               4)

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs relating to its intervention in Case T-17/15.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-465/08: Action brought on 15 October 2008 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/39

         Action brought on 15 October 2008 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-465/08)
   (2008/C 327/69)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 August 2008 on offsetting the Commission's claims against its debts, BUG/C3 D(2008) 10.5-3956;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Czech Republic the amount offset of EUR 9 354 130,93 and the corresponding interest for late payment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Czech Republic, by this action brought pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, seeks annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 August 2008 on offsetting the Commission's claims against its debts, BUG/C3 D(2008) 10.5-3956. The Commission on issuing the contested decision acted pursuant to Article 73(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as amended. By the contested decision, the Commission offset its claim against the Czech Republic, for repayment of funds from the PHARE T9106, CS9203 and CZ9302 revolving funds, amounting to EUR 9 354 130,93. The Commission's claim was offset against the Czech Republic's claim to two interim payments on two operational programmes financed from the structural fund amounting to EUR 10 814 475,41. The Czech Republic thus requests that the offset payments be made good.

               2.

               The contested decision is invalid, since the Commission exceeded its powers by issuing it, in that the decision in question was adopted on an incorrect legal basis.

               3.

               Even if it were accepted that, in the present circumstances, Regulation No 1605/2002 could be used, the contested decision is invalid on the ground that it was issued in breach of the conditions laid down for offsetting by that regulation, or, to be more precise, Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (2), which implements Regulation No 1605/2002 and lays down the offsetting procedure.

               4.

               Lastly, the contested decision is invalid on the ground that it contains no statement of reasons.

      (1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.


title: Case C-279/11: Action brought on 1 June 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/18

         Action brought on 1 June 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-279/11)
   2011/C 226/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of this Court in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU;

               —

               order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum of EUR 4 174,8 multiplied by the number of days between the ruling in Case C-66/06 and either compliance by Ireland with that ruling or the judgment in the present proceedings, whichever is the sooner;

               —

               order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 33 080,32 from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance by Ireland with the ruling in Case C-66/06; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Some two and a half years after the Court’s judgment of 20 November 2008, in case C-66/06, declaring that Ireland had not adopted measures fully transposing articles 2(1) and 4(2) to (4) of Council directive 85/337/EEC (1), Ireland has still failed to take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment. Therefore, the Commission proposes that Ireland should be ordered to pay a fine and a periodic penalty payment to reflect the serious nature of that infringement and its impact on the pursuit of the objectives pursued by the Community legislature.

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
   OJ L 175, p. 40


title: Case C-217/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2008 — Rita Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2008 — Rita Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)
   (Case C-217/08)
   (2008/C 197/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Ordinario di Milano
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rita Mariano

      Defendant: Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)
   Question referred
   Whether Articles 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty preclude the application of Article 85 of DPR No 1124/1965 in so far as it provides that, in the event of death as a result of an accident, only a spouse is entitled to an INAIL annuity at the rate of 50 % and a child [of a non-spouse] is entitled only to an annuity at the rate of 20 %.


title: Case C-63/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/22

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-63/14)
   2014/C 135/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the recipient the State aid declared illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée and the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation, (1) in not having annulled, within the prescribed periods, all the aid payments referred to in that Article 2(1) and in not having informed the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision;

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit within which the French Republic should have recovered the aid illegally paid to the SNCM expired four months after notification of the decision.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20.


title: Case T-91/11: Action brought on 21 February 2011 — Chimei InnoLux v Commission

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/18

         Action brought on 21 February 2011 — Chimei InnoLux v Commission
   (Case T-91/11)
   2011/C 113/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chimei InnoLux Corp. (Zhunan, Taiwan), (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer and R. Burton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2010) 8761 final of 8 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays insofar as it finds that the infringement extended to LCD panels for TV applications;

               —

               reduce the amount of the fine imposed upon the applicant in the decision; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the Commission applied a legally flawed concept, the concept of so-called ‘direct EEA sales through transformed products’, in determining the relevant value of sales for the calculation of the fine.
               In calculating the relevant value of sales of the applicant for the purpose of the determination of the fine, the Commission counted the value of LCD panels incorporated in finished IT or TV products sold by the applicant in the EEA. The applicant submits that this concept of ‘direct EEA sales through transformed products’ is legally unsound and cannot be used for the determination of the relevant value of sales. The applicant submits that the concept relies on sales of products to which the infringement does not directly or indirectly relate and artificially shifts the location of relevant intra-group sales of LCD panels from outside the EEA to within the EEA and vice versa depending upon the location of sale of the finished products into which such LCD panels are incorporated. As such, the applicant submits that the concept is inconsistent with the past case-law of the EU courts dealing, among others, with the treatment of intra-group sales for the calculation of the fine. Finally, the applicant submits that the concept as applied by the Commission in the decision leads to discrimination between the addressees of the decision illegally based on the mere form of their respective corporate structures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in finding that the infringement extended to LCD panels for TV applications.
               The applicant submits that, due to the specific characteristics of LCD panels for TV applications, the superficial and episodic nature of the discussions relating to such panels, and the fact that other, more detailed bilateral discussions concerning LCD panels for TV applications involving third parties were disregarded by the Commission in the decision, conduct regarding LCD panels for TV applications should have been analysed and assessed distinctly from the conduct relating to LCD panels for IT applications. In particular, in light of these factors, the applicant submits that the Commission’s finding that the infringement extended to LCD panels for TV applications is vitiated by violations of the principle of equal treatment and fundamental procedural requirements and must be annulled or, at the very least, that the Commission ought to have assessed the gravity and duration of any infringement arising from the conduct relating to LCD panels for TV applications separately from the infringement relating to LCD panels for IT applications for the purposes of calculating the fine.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the relevant value of sales taken by the Commission as the basis for the calculation of the applicant’s fine erroneously include sales other than sales of liquid crystal display panels for IT and TV applications.
               Sales of LCD panels for medical applications, which are used in the manufacture of medical equipment, were mistakenly included in sales data provided to the Commission during the administrative procedure. Given that medical panels do not qualify as IT or TV panels as defined by the Commission in the decision, the applicant submits that its sales of medical panels must be excluded from the relevant value of sales used to calculate the fine. Sales of so-called LCD open cells were also mistakenly included in sales data provided to the Commission during the administrative procedure. Given that LCD open cells are not finished products and the decision finds no infringement in relation to semi-finished products, the applicant submits that its sales of LCD open cells must be excluded from the relevant value of sales used to calculate the fine.


title: Case F-138/06: Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Meister v OHIM

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/55

         Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Meister v OHIM
   (Case F-138/06)
   (2007/C 82/117)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Herbert Meister (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: Hans-Joachim Zimmermann)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 September 2006 taken under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of OHIM of 18 September 2006 taken under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the written decision of rejection by the President of OHIM of 20 September 2006 (dated 18 September 2006);

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the written decision of the President of OHIM of 20 September 2006 which was based on Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the communication of OHIM of 9 June 2006 entitled ‘definitive Promotion Points 2006’;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the implied decision of rejection by the President of OHIM of 27 November 2006;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the applicant an appropriate amount of up to one year's salary, but not less than EUR 45 000;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an official of OHIM in Alicante, Spain, and complains about the reports which the defendant has to submit about him every two years, which, he claims, are substantively incorrect and are flawed and have not been produced on numerous occasions. Accordingly, the applicant seeks annulment of all the defendant's implied decisions taken on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the amendment of the promotion points granted erroneously by the defendant to him in 2006.
   The applicant also claims that, by unlawfully infringing Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in his regard for years, the defendant has intentionally and immorally disregarded his rights as an employee. He thus seeks damage for non-material harm from the defendant on the grounds of physical harassment and continuous infringement of his personal rights.


title: Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, Spain) — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, María del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (C-570/07), Principado de Asturias (C-571/07) (Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2005/36/EC — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — Proximity — Provision of medicinal products to the public — Operating licence — Territorial distribution of pharmacies — Establishment of limits based on population density — Minimum distance between pharmacies — Candidates who have pursued professional activities on part of the national territory — Priority — Discrimination)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, Spain) — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, María del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (C-570/07), Principado de Asturias (C-571/07)
   (Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07) (1)

   (Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2005/36/EC - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Provision of medicinal products to the public - Operating licence - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits based on population density - Minimum distance between pharmacies - Candidates who have pursued professional activities on part of the national territory - Priority - Discrimination)
   2010/C 209/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez, María del Pilar Chao Gómez

      Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios (C-570/07), Principado de Asturias (C-571/07)

      Intervening parties: Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles (C-570/07), Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias (C-570/07), Celso Fernández Gómez (C-571/07), Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España, Plataforma para la Defensa del Modelo Mediterráneo de Farmacias, Muy Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia, Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias — Interpretation of Article 43 EC — Legislation laying down the conditions for the opening of new pharmacies

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court, which imposes restrictions on the issue of licences for the opening of new pharmacies, by providing that:

                           —

                           in each pharmaceutical area, a single pharmacy may be opened, as a general rule, per unit of 2 800 inhabitants;

                           —

                           a supplementary pharmacy may not be opened until that threshold has been exceeded, that pharmacy being established for the fraction above 2 000 inhabitants; and

                           —

                           each pharmacy must be a minimum distance away from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 250 metres.

                     Nevertheless, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic ‘2 800 inhabitants’ and ‘250 metres’ rules prevent, in any geographical area which has special demographic features, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to ensure adequate pharmaceutical services, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and Article 45(2)(e) and (g) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as precluding criteria, such as those set out in points 6 and 7(c) of the Annex to Decree 72/2001 of 19 July 2001, regulating pharmacies and dispensaries in the Principality of Asturias (Decreto 72/2001 regulador de las oficinas de farmacia y botiquines en el Principado de Asturias), under which licensees for new pharmacies are to be selected.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-384/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Prunus SARL, Polonium SA v Directeur des services fiscaux (Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Article 64 TFEU — Legal persons established in a non-Member State — Ownership of immovable property located in a Member State — Tax on the market value of that property — Refusal of exemption — Assessment with regard to overseas countries and territories — Combating tax evasion — Joint and several liability)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Prunus SARL, Polonium SA v Directeur des services fiscaux
   (Case C-384/09) (1)

   (Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 64 TFEU - Legal persons established in a non-Member State - Ownership of immovable property located in a Member State - Tax on the market value of that property - Refusal of exemption - Assessment with regard to overseas countries and territories - Combating tax evasion - Joint and several liability)
   2011/C 186/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Prunus SARL, Polonium SA

      Defendant: Directeur des services fiscaux

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance (Paris) — Interpretation of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty — Tax on the commercial value of immoveable property situated in France — Compatibility with the Treaty of national legislation exempting from that tax legal persons having their effective centre of management in France or another Member State of the European Union, but making that exemption conditional, as regards legal persons having their effective centre of management in the territory of a non-Member State, on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion and avoidance concluded between France and that State or of a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality — Refusal to exempt in respect of two companies established in the British Virgin Islands — Obligation for the joint and several debtors, legal persons established in France, to pay the tax

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 64(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that Article 63 TFEU is without prejudice to the application of national legislation in force on 31 December 1993 which exempts from the tax on the market value of immovable property located in the territory of a Member State of the European Union companies having their registered office in the territory of that State and makes entitlement to that exemption, for a company whose registered office is in an overseas country or territory, conditional either on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance to combat tax evasion and avoidance concluded between that Member State and that territory or on there being a requirement, under a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality, that those legal persons are not to be taxed more heavily than companies established in the territory of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-8/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/13

         Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-8/10)
   2010/C 80/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/46/EC lapsed on 5 September 2008. At the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 1997 in Case C-369/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno): Somalfruit SpA, Camar SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero (Bananas - Common organization of the markets - Import arrangements - ACP States - Somalia - Validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and Commission Regulations (EEC) No 1442/93 and (EEC) No 1443/93)

text:
7.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 41/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Regulation
                      (Sixth Chamber)                                     (EEC) No 1765/92 must be interpreted as meaning
                                                                          that a Member State which, under the third sentence
                   of 27 November 1997                                    of the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of that
in Case C-356/95 (application for a preliminary ruling by                 Regulation, has not designated its whole territory as a
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                     regional base area but merely different parts of it, is
 Matthias Witt v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft (1)                  entitled to establish the whole territory of a specific
                                                                          regional base area as a production region, and that the
(Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC)                            specific characteristics that influence yields do not
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain                      require regional base areas to be further subdivided
arable crops Ð Establishment of production regions Ð                      into different production regions.
Obligation to indicate the criteria used Ð Relevance of
                        soil fertility)                              (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                        (98/C 41/01)
              (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 November 1997
In Case C-356/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                     in Case C-369/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                   the Tribunale di Salerno): Somalfruit SpA, Camar SpA v.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del Commercio con
between Matthias Witt and Amt für Land- und                                                     l'Estero (1)
Wasserwirtschaft, on the interpretation of the first
                                                                     (Bananas Ð Common organization of the markets Ð
subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     Import arrangements Ð ACP States Ð Somalia Ð Validity
No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and Commission
system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ L 181,
                                                                       Regulations (EEC) No 1442/93 and (EEC) No 1443/93)
1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R.                                                 (98/C 41/02)
Schintgen, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and
G. Hirsch, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; D.                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, gave a
judgment on 27 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
1. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992                      In Case C-369/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
    establishing a support system for producers of certain           of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale (District Court),
    arable crops does not require the Member States, in              Salerno (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    establishing production regions, to indicate the criteria        pending before that court between Somalfruit SpA, Camar
    used in the provisions implementing that Regulation.             SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.2.98
Commercio con l'Estero Ð on the validity of Council                  (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary ruling in
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                the proceedings pending before that court between H.
common organization of the market in bananas (OJ L 47,               Meints and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
25.2.1993, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/               Visserij Ð on the interpretation of Article 4 of Council
93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the                Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of the arrangements for importing bananas                application of social security schemes to employed
into the Community (OJ L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 6) and                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/93 of 10 June                    families moving within the Community, as amended and
1993 on transitional measures for the application of the             updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
arrangements for importing bananas into the Community                2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, 2.2.1983, p. 6), and of Article 7
in 1993 (OJ L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 16) Ð the Court (Sixth              of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F. Mancini, P. J. G.          within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968
Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-             (II), p. 475) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,               C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November               Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
1997, in which it has ruled:                                         L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A.
                                                                     Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                     a judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
1. Consideration of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/
     93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization
     of the market in bananas in the light of the Fourth
     ACP-EEC Convention, signed in LomeÂ                     on
     15 December 1989 and approved by Decision 91/400/               1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
     ECSC, EEC of the Council and the Commission of                       1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     25 February 1991, has revealed no factor of such a                   employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
     kind as to affect its validity.                                      members of their families moving within the
                                                                          Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, does
2. Consideration of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                          not apply to a compensation scheme under which
     No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed
                                                                          agricultural workers, whose contract of employment
     rules for the application of the arrangements for
                                                                          has been terminated as a result of the setting aside of
     importing bananas into the Community in the light of
                                                                          land belonging to their former employer, receive a
     the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention and Regulation
                                                                          benefit in the form of a single payment, the amount of
     (EEC) No 404/93 has revealed no factor of such a
                                                                          which is determined solely by the age of the recipient
     kind as to affect its validity.
                                                                          and which must be repaid if the recipient is
                                                                          reemployed by his former employer within 12 months
(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.1996.                                                    following the termination of his contract of
                                                                          employment.
                                                                     2. A benefit which takes the form of a single payment to
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      agricultural workers whose contract of employment
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                   has been terminated as a result of the setting aside of
                                                                          land belonging to their former employer is to be
                    of 27 November 1997                                   classified as a social advantage within the meaning of
in Case C-57/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
the Nederlandse Raad van State): H. Meints v. Minister                    Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
         van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)                       for workers within the Community.
(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Unemployment benefit
Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð Social advantage Ð
Discrimination based on nationality Ð Residence
                            condition)                               3. A Member State may not make payment of a social
                                                                          advantage within the meaning of Article 7 (2) of
                          (98/C 41/03)                                    Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 dependent on the
                                                                          condition that recipients be resident within its
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                             territory.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-57/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State


title: Case C-231/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that court of 23 February 2004 in the case of Confcooperative Unione Regionale della Cooperazione FVG Federagricole and Others against Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali and Regione Veneto

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that court of 23 February 2004 in the case of Confcooperative Unione Regionale della Cooperazione FVG Federagricole and Others against Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali and Regione Veneto
   (Case C-231/04)
   (2004/C 201/19)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio of 23 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Confcooperative Unione Regionale della Cooperazione FVG Federagricole and Others against Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali and Regione Veneto on the following questions:

               ‘1.

               Can the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded on 16 December 1991 and published in OJ 1993 L 347, provide a proper and sufficient legal basis for conferring on the European Community power to conclude the Community Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names of 29 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337), with particular reference to Article 65(1), to joint declaration no 13 and to Annex XIII (points 3, 4 and 5) of the European Agreement of 1991 on the possible reservation of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Member States in the matter of national geographical names used with reference to food and wine and restraint of any transfer of jurisdiction of competence in that matter to the European Community?

               2.

               In view of what is said in opinion no 1/94 of the Court of Justice of the European Communities concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Community, should the Community Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the protection and control of wine names of 29 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337), which specifies the protection of geographical names which have intellectual and commercial property significance, be declared invalid and of no effect within the Community legal order because the agreement itself has not been ratified by the individual Member States of the European Community?

               3.

               In the event that the Community Agreement of 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337) is to be regarded as lawful and applicable in its entirety, should the prohibition of the use in Italy after 2007 of the name “Tocai”, which arises from the exchange of letters between the parties to the agreement, annexed to the agreement, be regarded as invalid and of no effect because it is inconsistent with the rules governing geographical homonyms established in the agreement itself (see Article 4(5) of the protocol to the agreement)?

               4.

               Should the Second Joint Declaration annexed to the 1993 agreement (OJ 1993 L 337), which implies that the contracting parties were unaware, at the time of their negotiations, of the existence of homonyms connected with European and Hungarian wines, be regarded as a clear misrepresentation of reality (given that the Italian and Hungarian names used to refer to “Tocai” wines have existed alongside each other for centuries, were officially recognised in 1948 in an agreement between Italy and Hungary and were recently brought within the scope of Community law) such as to render null and void that part of the 1993 agreement which prohibits the use in Italy of the name Tocai, on the basis of Article 48 of the Vienna convention on the law of the Treaties?

               5.

               In light of Article 59 of the Vienna convention on the law of the Treaties, is the TRIPS agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (OJ 1994 L 336), which was concluded within the context of the World Trade Organisation and entered into force on 1 January 1996, thus after the Community Agreement of 1993 (OJ 1994 L 337) entered into force, to be interpreted as meaning that its provisions governing homonyms in vine names apply in place of those of the Community Agreement of 1993 where there is inconsistency between the two, given that the parties to both agreements are the same?

               6.

               In the case of two names that are homonyms and refer to two different wines produced in two different countries both party to the TRIPS Agreement (and both where the homonym relates to two geographical names used in both the countries party to TRIPS and where it relates to a geographical name in one country and the like name relates to a vine traditionally cultivated in another country party to TRIPS), must Articles 22 to 24 of the Third Part of Annex C to the Treaty Establishing the World Trade Organisation, which contains the TRIPS Agreement (OJ 1994 L 336), which entered into force on 1 January 1996, be interpreted as meaning that both the names may continue to be used provided that they have been used in the past by the respective producers either in good faith or for at least 10 years prior to 15 April 1994 (Article 24(4)) and each name clearly indicates the country or region or area of the origin of the wine to which it refers in such a way as not to mislead consumers?’


title: Case C-358/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristö- keskuksen liikenne ja infrastruktuuri vastuualue

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristö- keskuksen liikenne ja infrastruktuuri vastuualue
   (Case C-358/11)
   2011/C 269/76
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristö- keskuksen liikenne ja infrastruktuuri vastuualue

      Other parties: Lapin luonnonsuojelupiiri ry and Lapin elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristö- keskuksen ympäristö ja luonnonvarat vastuualue

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it possible to deduce directly from the fact that waste is classified as dangerous waste that the use of such a substance or object leads to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts within the meaning of Article 6(1)(d) of Waste Directive 2008/98/EC? May hazardous waste also cease to be waste if it fulfils the requirements laid down in Article 6(1) of Waste Directive 2008/98/EC?

               2.

               In interpreting the concept of waste and, in particular, assessing the obligation to dispose of a substance or an object, is it relevant that the re-use of the object which is the subject of the assessment is authorised under certain conditions by Annex XVII as referred to in Article 67 of the REACH Regulation? If that is the case, what weight is to be given to that fact?

               3.

               Has Article 67 of the REACH Regulation harmonised the requirements concerning the manufacture, placing on the market or use within the meaning of Article 128(2) of that regulation so that the use of the preparations or objects mentioned in Annex XVII cannot be prevented by national rules on environmental protection unless those restrictions have been published in the inventory compiled by the Commission, as provided for in Article 67(3) of the REACH Regulation?

               4.

               Is the list in Point 19(4)(b) in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation of the uses of CCA-treated wood to be interpreted as meaning that that inventory exhaustively lists all the possible uses?

               5.

               Can the use of the wood at issue as underlay and duckboards for a hiking trail be treated in the same way as the uses listed in the inventory referred to in question 4 above, so that the use in question may be permitted on the basis of Point 19(4)(b) of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation if the other conditions are met?

               6.

               Which factors are to be taken into account in order to assess whether repeated skin contact within the meaning of Point 19(4)(d) of Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation is possible?

               7.

               Does the word ‘possible’ in the point mentioned in question 6 above mean that repeated skin contact is theoretically possible or that repeated skin contact is actually possible to some extent?


title: Case T-159/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — HK Intertrade v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/24

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — HK Intertrade v Council
   (Case T-159/13)
   2013/C 147/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong-Kong) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.71), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.55), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits five grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give notice, insufficient statement of reasons, violation of the right of defence, and manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant and violated its obligation to give notice to the applicant. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which failing has been compounded by the failure of the Council to reply to the applicant’s requests for access to documents and for general disclosure. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a ‘front company’ for National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and in any case the Council has not substantiated that the mere fact that the applicant was established as a subsidiary of NIOC is sufficient to thereby entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State contrary to the aim of the contested measures. Further, the Council has clearly violated the right of defence of the applicant and lastly has made manifest errors of assessment.