title: Case F-129/06: Action brought on 16 November 2006 — Salvador Roldán v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/85

         Action brought on 16 November 2006 — Salvador Roldán v Commission
   (Case F-129/06)
   (2006/C 326/172)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rocío Salvador Roldán (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Tuytschaever and H. Burez, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the Decision of the Appointing Authority in response to the complaint lodged by the applicant (No R/320/06) of 18 August 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the amounts corresponding to the expatriation allowance to which she is entitled, with effect from 1 April 2006, together with a default interest of 7 % from the date each amount fell due until the actual date of payment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application is based upon two pleas in law:

               1)

               The applicant contests the Commission's conclusion according to which she does not comply with the condition provided for in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for the payment of the expatriation allowance. The applicant claims that the contested decision incorrectly holds that she habitually resided in Belgium during the reference period. In particular, in her opinion, the provision of services by the applicant to an international law firm established in Belgium does not entail the consequence that she had established lasting ties in that Member State.

               2)

               The applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because it breaches the principle of non-discrimination. First, she raises a plea of illegality of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She argues that this provision unduly makes a difference between, on the one hand, officials who performed, in the same Member State in which they were recruited by a European institution, duties in the service of another State or of an international organisation and, on the other hand, officials, such as the applicant, whose situations are also characterised by a lack of lasting ties with the Member State they used to work in before being recruited by a European institution. Second, the applicant claims that the Commission applied the abovementioned provision in a discriminatory manner, in so far as it did not take into account the personal circumstances of the applicant demonstrating that she had not intended to establish lasting ties in Belgium.


title: Case C-151/08: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — N.N. Renta SA v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC), Generalidad de Cataluña (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 33(1) — Definition of turnover taxes — Duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/6

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Spain) — N.N. Renta SA v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC), Generalidad de Cataluña
   (Case C-151/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Definition of ‘turnover taxes’ - Duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions)
   2009/C 90/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

      Parties

      Applicant: N.N. Renta SA

      Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC), Generalidad de Cataluña

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Interpretation of Art. 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Definition of ‘turnover taxes’ — National duty on capital transfers and documented legal transactions

      Operative part of the order

   Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the charging of the variable or proportional amount of the duty on transfers of assets and documented legal transactions when it is chargeable on the conclusion of a purchase by an undertaking whose business activity consists of buying and selling immovable property or purchasing immovable property for development or letting.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Tax legislation — Wealth tax — Entitlement to an allowance — Separate treatment of residents and non-residents — Double taxation convention)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 5 July 2005
   in Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)

   (Tax legislation - Wealth tax - Entitlement to an allowance - Separate treatment of residents and non-residents - Double taxation convention)
   (2005/C 271/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-376/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 July 2003, received at the Court on 8 September 2003, in the proceedings between D. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen — the Court (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation under which a Member State denies non-resident taxpayers who hold the major part of their wealth in the State where they are resident entitlement to the allowances which it grants to resident taxpayers.

               2.

               Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude a rule laid down by a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation such as the rule at issue in the main proceedings from not being extended, in a situation and in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to residents of a Member State which is not party to that convention.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-68/13: Order of the President of the Court of 28 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/59

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-68/13) (1)

   2013/C 225/131
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-321/05: Action brought on 25 August 2005 — AstraZeneca/Commission

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/24

         Action brought on 25 August 2005 — AstraZeneca/Commission
   (Case T-321/05)
   (2005/C 271/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): AstraZeneca AB (Sodertalje, Sweden) and AstraZeneca plc (London, United Kingdom) [represented by: M. Brealey, QC, M. Hoskins, barrister, F. Murphy, solicitor]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Quash the European Commission's Decision of 15 July 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs of these legal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested Decision the Commission fined both applicants EUR 46 000 000 and fined the first applicant a further EUR 14 000 000 for infringements of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Commission found that, beginning in 1993, the applicants engaged in a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation to patent attorneys, national courts and patent offices in order to obtain supplementary protection certificates to which they knew they were not entitled to for their patented product ‘omeprazole’, the active substance in the applicants' ‘Losec’ medicinal product. It also found that in 1998/1999 the applicants operated a strategy of selectively withdrawing their ‘Losec’ capsules, replacing them with ‘Losec’ tablets, and requesting the deregistration of the marketing authorisation for the capsules in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The Decision considers that both infringements were committed with the intention of unfairly restricting competition from generics and parallel imports.
   The applicants challenge the Commission's Decision on several levels. They allege first of all that the Commission mistakenly defined the relevant market as being only that of proton pump inhibitors, used for the treatment of gastrointestinal acid related diseases, and excluded histamine receptor antagonists from the relevant market. This finding also influences the Commission's finding on dominance, since, according to the applicants, the contested Decision does not consider whether the applicants would still be in a dominant position if histamine receptor antagonists were included in the relevant market.
   The applicants further challenge the Commission's findings of infringements both on legal and factual grounds. Regarding the alleged misrepresentations with respect to patents, the applicants consider that such misleading representations made in the course of applications for intellectual property rights cannot in law amount to an abuse unless and until the dishonestly obtained rights are enforced or are capable of being enforced. They also consider that Article 82 EC, properly interpreted, did not impose on them an obligation to maintain a marketing authorisation for a product they no longer marketed, merely because it would make it easier for generics and parallel traders to compete with it.
   The applicants also challenge the Commission's findings of facts on both infringements. They submit that the Commission failed to adduce evidence proving to the correct legal standard the alleged abuse of intellectual property rights and that, furthermore, there was no strategy for selectively changing from ‘Losec’ capsules to tablets or selectively withdrawing marketing authorisations for the capsules.


title: Case C-337/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 17 July 2001, in the case of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and Logistik against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen

text:
8.12.2001             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Bundesfinanzh-            Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
of, by order of that court of 17 July 2001, in the case              Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and Logistik                  against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für
         against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen                      pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH on the
                                                                     following questions:
                         (Case C-337/01)
                                                                     1.   Are Articles 81 and 82 EC to be interpreted as precluding
                                                                          national rules under which national leading associations
                         (2001/C 348/18)                                  of statutory sickness insurance determine binding
                                                                          maximum amounts for all statutory sickness funds and
                                                                          compensatory sickness funds up to which the funds bear
                                                                          the costs of medicines, where the legislature defines the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    criteria by which the maximum amounts are to be
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      calculated, providing in particular that the fixed amounts
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 July 2001, received at the Court            must ensure comprehensive and quality-assured treat-
Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                ment of insured persons as well as an adequate range of
the case of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and                       therapeutic alternatives, and the determination is subject
Logistik against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, on the                   to comprehensive review by the courts, which may be
following question:                                                       initiated by both insured persons and affected medicinal
                                                                          product manufacturers?
Is there a removal from customs supervision of re-exported
                                                                     2.   If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
non-Community goods resulting in the incurring of a customs
debt under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1) solely by virtue of the fact that the goods                Does Article 86(2) EC exempt such a determination from
intended for re-export from the customs territory of the                  Articles 81 and 82 EC where the purpose of the
Community were not placed under the external transit pro-                 determination is to safeguard, in the manner provided for
cedure immediately on removal from the customs warehouse?                 in paragraph 35 SGB V, a sickness insurance scheme
                                                                          whose existence was endangered by a significant increase
                                                                          in costs?
(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                     3.   If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2
                                                                          in the negative:
                                                                          Are leading associations such as the defendants liable to
                                                                          claims under Community law for damages and an
                                                                          injunction even where in determining maximum amounts
                                                                          they follow a statutory direction, notwithstanding that
References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-                 national law does not impose any penalty for refusal to
shof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of               assist in the making of such a determination?
1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betrieb-
skrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenk-
assen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krank-
enkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V.,
6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundes-
knappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke
Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeuti-
     sche und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
               (Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01)                         gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                         (2001/C 348/19)
                                                                                (Case C-369/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                       (2001/C 348/20)
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichshof of
3 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 20 September
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. AOK
Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der          European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht


title: Case C-486/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access — Levying of excessive fees)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X
   (Case C-486/12) (1)

   (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access - Levying of excessive fees)
   2014/C 45/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

      Party to the main proceedings

   X

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Right of access to data — Communication of data undergoing processing — Meaning — Grant of access to data — Levying a fee.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not precluding the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority.

               2.

               Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that fees levied when the right to access personal data is exercised are not excessive for the purposes of that provision, the level of those fees must not exceed the cost of communicating such data. It is for the national court to carry out any verifications necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-121/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — PC-Ware Information Technologies v Commission (Public supply contracts — Community tendering procedure — Acquisition of software products and licences — Rejection of a tender — Abnormally low tender — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — PC-Ware Information Technologies v Commission
   (Case T-121/08) (1)

   (Public supply contracts - Community tendering procedure - Acquisition of software products and licences - Rejection of a tender - Abnormally low tender - Obligation to state reasons)
   2010/C 179/55
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: PC-Ware Information Technologies BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Devillé and B. Maerevoet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, Agent, and P. Wytinck, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in public procurement procedure DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/022 and, in the alternative, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s conduct.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders PC-Ware Information Technologies BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-470/12: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2014  — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of that application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/33

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)
   (Case T-470/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of that application - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 112/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sothys Auriac (Auriac, France) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grand Hotel Primavera SA (Borgo Maggiore, San Marino)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2012 (Case R 1419/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grand Hotel Primavera SA and Sothys Auriac.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-510/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Bloomsbury NV v Belgische Staat (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Article 2(3) — Principle of a true and fair view — Article 2(4) — Obligation to inform — Article 2(5) — Obligation to depart from the principle of a true and fair view — Article 32 — Valuation method based on historical cost — Acquisition by a company of an asset free of charge)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/2

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Bloomsbury NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-510/12) (1)

   ((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Article 2(3) - Principle of a true and fair view - Article 2(4) - Obligation to inform - Article 2(5) - Obligation to depart from the principle of a true and fair view - Article 32 - Valuation method based on historical cost - Acquisition by a company of an asset free of charge))
   2014/C 184/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bloomsbury NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) 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) — Principle of a true and fair view — Acquisition by a company of an important asset free of charge — Not possible for the company to enter the value of that acquisition in its accounts as a distorted impression would thereby be given of its assets, financial situation and results

      Operative part of the order

   Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article 2 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies must be interpreted as meaning that, where a company acquires an important asset free of charge, it is under no obligation to enter that asset in the accounts at its true value.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-14/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/15

         Appeal brought on 11 January 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-14/11 P)
   2011/C 80/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alliance One International, Inc. (formerly Standard Commercial Corp.), Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside point 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment;

               —

               dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;

               —

               require TCLT to bear the costs of these proceedings and to require the three Applicants to bear the entirety of the cots of the proceedings in first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment and disregarded a well established line of case law according to which the liability of each company must be assessed on its own merits.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law in considering that the Commission's treatment of certain parent companies determined the legal standard for holding other parent companies liable, even if such standard went beyond what the case law requires.

               3.

               By preventing the Commission from raising arguments in response to claims of discrimination, the General Court breached the Commission's rights to an adversarial procedure and misinterpreted the duty to state reasons.

               4.

               The General Court misapplied the principle of equal treatment since Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd. was in an objectively different situation from Intabex and Universal.


               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-458/04 (1)

   (2005/C 271/36)

      Language of the case: French

   By order of 29 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-458/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Caen): Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Flers-Argentan v Directeur des services fiscaux de la DIRCOFI Quest.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 22.01.2005.


title: Case C-48/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA (Corporation taxes — Directive 90/435/EEC — Status of parent company — Capital holding — Holding of shares in usufruct)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA
   (Case C-48/07) (1)

   (Corporation taxes - Directive 90/435/EEC - Status of parent company - Capital holding - Holding of shares in usufruct)
   (2009/C 44/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Defendant: Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiary companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Meaning of holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member State — Whether holding a right of usufruct over shareholdings is sufficient for tax exemption on dividends received, or whether full ownership is needed.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The concept of a holding in the capital of a company of another Member State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, does not include the holding of shares in usufruct.
   However, in compliance with the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the EC Treaty, applicable to cross-border situations, when a Member State, in order to avoid double taxation of received dividends, exempts from tax both the dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company in which it holds shares with full title and those which a resident company receives from another resident company in which it holds shares in usufruct, that Member State must apply, for the purpose of exempting received dividends, the same treatment to dividends received from a company established in another Member State by a resident company holding shares with full title as that which it applies to such dividends received by a resident company which holds shares in usufruct.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-314/10: Order of the Court of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State) (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Examination of compatibility of national rule both with European Union law and with national Constitution — National legislation requiring preliminary review procedure in case of constitutionality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Need for a connection with European Union law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/22

      Order of the Court of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State)
      (Case C-314/10) (1)

      (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Examination of compatibility of national rule both with European Union law and with national Constitution - National legislation requiring preliminary review procedure in case of constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Need for a connection with European Union law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
      (2012/C 25/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Hubert Pagnoul

         Defendant: Belgian State

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Obligatory preliminary referral to the constitutional court by national courts in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation — Compatibility with European Union law of the provision of national law requiring that preliminary referral — Possibility for national courts to review compatibility of national rules with international treaties where the constitutional court has declared the national legislation at issue to be compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

         Operative part of the order

      The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).

         (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March2004 in Case T-238/02 José Barbosa Gonçalves v Commission of the EuropeanCommunities (Officials — Action — Application for compensation brought withoutrecourse to the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by the Staff Regulations— Admissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/60

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 25 March 2004
   in Case T-238/02 José Barbosa Gonçalves v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action - Application for compensation brought without recourse to the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by the Staff Regulations - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 106/119)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case T-238/02, José Barbosa Gonçalves, residing in Viana do Castelo (Portugal), represented by J. Dias Gonçalves, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Joris and G. Braga da Cruz) – application for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the failure to admit him to the written tests in the competition organised by the Commission of the European Communities under No A/6/01 – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; José Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 2004 in which it:

               (1)

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               (2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.


title: Case T-308/11: Action brought on 13 June 2011 — Eurallumina v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/30

         Action brought on 13 June 2011 — Eurallumina v Commission
   (Case T-308/11)
   2011/C 238/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by V. Leone, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety the contested decision as it relates to Eurallumina; or

         in the alternative,

               —

               annul Article 2 of the contested decision, in relation to the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004 and, in consequence, Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it orders recovery from Eurallumina; or

               —

               annul Article 3 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery from Eurallumina; and

         in any case

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The application seeks annulment of the contested decision which:

               classifies as new, unlawful, incompatible aid the measure contained in Article 1 of Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers No 14042 of 6 February 2004 (‘the decree of 2004’) and in the decisions adopted by the Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas (‘the AEEG’) in order to give effect to that provision (together ‘the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004’), ordering its recovery;

               classifies as new, incompatible aid the measure notified by Italy, contained in Article 11(12) of Law No 80 of 14 May 2005 converting into law Decree-Law No 35 of 14 March 2005 (‘Law No 80/2005’), and in the decision adopted by the AEEG for the application of that measure (together ‘the measure adopted pursuant to Law No 80/2005’).

         In support of its action, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the general principle of proper administration
               The applicant maintains that the Commission erred in appraising together the two measures mentioned above, which called for separate appraisal having regard to their objective differences in respect of legal basis, addressees and the compensation mechanism provided. That led to an overlapping of the arguments used by the Commission, which made it harder for the applicant to defend itself.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the definition of State aid
               The applicant maintains that the Commission erred in considering the two measures to be State aid, for neither case satisfies the requirements of advantage [that would not have been obtained] in ordinary market conditions, that threatens to distort competition, or of effect on trade between Member States. In particular:

                           as regards the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004, this confers no advantage for it is merely a subjective extension of the measure earlier considered by the Commission not to be aid in the ‘Alumix’ (1) case, in which the Commission decided that the electricity tariff applied to Alumix did not constitute an advantage for the latter. Furthermore, the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004 is incapable of affecting intra-Community trade — so far as Eurallumina is concerned — because the alumina market is in deficit in the EU and any reduction of its activities would not be offset by an increase in exports by operators in other Member States, which are already working at full capacity;

                           as regards the measure adopted pursuant to Law No 80/2005, this confers no advantage in relation to ordinary market conditions for, given the anomalies of the power market in Italy and, above all, in Sardinia — where the price of electricity is kept artificially high because there is no interconnection with the continent — the reference to the price reached at European level on stock markets constitutes a valid reference in order to regard the tariff applied as a ‘market’ tariff, for the activities of the beneficiaries. The considerations valid with regard to the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004 hold good with regard to intra-Community trade too.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(3) TFEU as regards the derogation for aid for regional purposes provided for in subparagraph (a)
               The applicant maintains that the Commission erred in finding the two measures not compatible as being aid for regional purposes. In particular, the following aspects:

                           there exists regional disadvantage, due to Sardinia’s not being interconnected with the continent, which renders disadvantageous the supplying of power to the beneficiaries, and due to the fact that the greatest consumers of power form the backbone of the island’s productive structure, to a large extent determining its levels of employment;

                           the proportionality and the appropriateness of the measures in question to make up for that disadvantage, as provisional measures designed to prevent the beneficiaries from moving away, pending the overcoming of the situation of structural disadvantage, by means of initiatives already begun and — now — brought to a conclusion by the Italian State, apt to create sufficient interconnection capacity for Sardinia and by means of specific efficiency investments that the beneficiaries have undertaken to continue;

                           the two measures are temporary in nature and decreasing de facto.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements — want of reasoning
               The applicant maintains that the Commission failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision, in particular with regard to:

                           the difference between the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004 and the measure at issue in the ‘Alumix’ decision;

                           the existence of the factor of possible distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States;

                           the proportionality of the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging error of assessment in examining the circumstances that warrant legitimate expectations
               The applicant maintains that the Commission erred in determining that there were no circumstances to warrant legitimate expectations on Eurallumina’s part as to the non-aid character of the measure adopted pursuant to the decree of 2004.

      (1)  Published in OJ C 288/4 of 1.10.1996, p. 4.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 184, 2.8.2003

text:
C 200/34       EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                        23.8.2003
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 200/60)
               Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 184, 2.8.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 171, 19.7.2003
         OJ C 158, 5.7.2003
         OJ C 146, 21.6.2003
         OJ C 135, 7.6.2003
         OJ C 124, 24.5.2003
         OJ C 112, 10.5.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-242/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 July 2009 — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten and John Roest

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 3 July 2009 — Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten and John Roest
   (Case C-242/09)
   2009/C 220/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Albron Catering BV

      Defendants: FNV Bondgenoten, John Roest

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Directive 2001/23/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is a transfer of rights and obligations to the transferee referred to in the first sentence of Article 3(1) only if the transferor of the undertaking to be transferred is also the formal employer of the employees concerned, or does the protection of employees envisaged by the Directive imply that, upon transfer of an undertaking from an operating company belonging to a group, the rights and obligations pertaining to the employees working for that undertaking are transferred to the transferee if all the personnel working in the group are in the employ of a personnel company (which also belongs to that group) which functions as the central employer?

               2.

               What would be the answer to the second part of the first question if the employees referred to there who work for an undertaking belonging to a group are in the employ of another company which also belongs to that group, which is not a personnel company as described in the first question?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Case C-558/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres — France) — Michel Bourgès-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Heintz, wife of Mr Bourgès-Maunoury v Direction des services fiscaux d’Eure-et-Loir (Privileges and immunities of the European Communities — Exemption from national taxes on salaries paid by the European Union — Inclusion of income paid by the European Union in the calculation of the cap for wealth tax)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres — France) — Michel Bourgès-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Heintz, wife of Mr Bourgès-Maunoury v Direction des services fiscaux d’Eure-et-Loir
   (Case C-558/10) (1)

   (Privileges and immunities of the European Communities - Exemption from national taxes on salaries paid by the European Union - Inclusion of income paid by the European Union in the calculation of the cap for wealth tax)
   2012/C 287/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michel Bourgès-Maunoury, Marie-Louise Heintz, wife of Mr Bourgès-Maunoury

      Defendant: Direction des services fiscaux d’Eure-et-Loir

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Chartres –Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 13 of Chapter V of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967, 152, p. 13) — Validity of national legislation providing that the entirety of a taxpayer’s income, including Community income, is to be taken into account in calculating the cap on wealth tax — Exemption from national taxes on remuneration paid by the Communities — Former officials of the European Communities

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, initially annexed to the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, and subsequently, under the Amsterdam Treaty, to the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which takes account of the income, including the pensions and allowances on termination of service, paid by the European Union to its officials and other staff, or to its former officials and former staff, in calculating the cap on a tax such as the wealth tax.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case F-140/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/43

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-140/15)
   (2016/C 111/53)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Cortese, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision amending the amount of the survivor’s pension granted to the applicant and of the orphans’ pensions granted to the applicant’s three children.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul amendment decision No 3 of the Head of Unit PMO.4 of the European Commission setting out new amounts of the survivor’s pension granted to the complainant and of the orphans’ pensions granted to the complainant’s three children, communicated to the applicant on 6 February 2015, as supplemented by the grounds for the decision rejecting the complaint of the appointing authority of 3 August 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-41/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium), lodged on 26 January 2011 — Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium), lodged on 26 January 2011 — Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne
   (Case C-41/11)
   2011/C 113/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Terre wallonne ASBL

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Question referred

   Can the Conseil d’État,

               —

               seised of an action seeking the annulment of the decree of the Government of Wallonia of 15 February 2007 amending Book II of the Environment Code, which forms the Water Code, as regards the sustainable management of nitrogen in agriculture,

               —

               finding that that decree was adopted without compliance with the procedure prescribed by Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) and that it is, for that reason, contrary to the law of the European Union and must be annulled,

               —

               but finding at the same time that the contested decree provides for an appropriate implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (2)

               —

               defer in time the effects of the judicial annulment for a short period necessary for the redrafting of the annulled measure in order to maintain in European Union environmental law a degree of specific implementation without any break in continuity?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.


title: Case F-18/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2006 — D v Commission (Occupational disease — Request for recognition that the aggravation of the disease from which the applicant is suffering is of occupational origin)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2006 — D v Commission
   (Case F-18/05) (1)

   (Occupational disease - Request for recognition that the aggravation of the disease from which the applicant is suffering is of occupational origin)
   (2006/C 212/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: D (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Van Rossum, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision to reject the applicant's request for recognition that the aggravation of the disease from which he is suffering is of occupational origin.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities rejecting the request for recognition that the applicant's disease or aggravation thereof is of occupational origin.

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005 (case initially registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under Case T-147/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-316/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/24

      Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA
      (Case C-316/11 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed)
      (2012/C 25/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA

         Re:

      Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2011 in Case T-96/11 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Biofarma by which that court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for word mark ‘VITACHRON FEMALE’ for goods and services in, inter alia, class 5 against Decision R 1357/2010-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 January 2011, declaring that the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision — which refused registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national marks ‘VITATHION’ for goods and services in class 5 — was deemed not to have been filed since the appeal fee had not been paid within the time-limit.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Longevity Health Products, Inc. shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-248/10: Action brought on 19 May 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/26

         Action brought on 19 May 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-248/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and A. Nijenhuis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2007/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, 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 transposing Directive 2007/44/EC into domestic law expired on 21 March 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 247 of 21.9.2007, p. 1


title: Case T-403/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — MyTravel v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice — Documents relating to decisions of the Commission in the area of concentrations)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — MyTravel v Commission
   (Case T-403/05) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice - Documents relating to decisions of the Commission in the area of concentrations)
   (2008/C 272/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, A. Lewis, Barrister, M. Nicholson, S. Cardell and B. McKenna, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Hellström and P. Costa de Oliveira, and subsequently by X. Lewis and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)
   Re:
   ACTION for the annulment of the Commission's decisions of 5 September 2005 (D(2005) 8461) and 12 October 2005 (D(2005) 9763), refusing to grant the applicant access to certain preparatory documents for the Commission Decision 2000/276/EC of 22 September 1999 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No IV/M. 1524 Airtours/First Choice), and to documents drafted by the Commission services in consequence of the annulment of that decision by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99 [2002] ECR II-2585.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2005 (D(2005) 8461) in so far as it refuses access to a working document entitled ‘Minutes from the conversation of a member of the case team in Case M.1524 Airtours/First Choice on the Airtours case conducted on 24 June 2002’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders MyTravel Group plc to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one-tenth of its own costs and one-tenth of the costs incurred by MyTravel Group.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-147/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 173/21
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 15 March 2001
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
in Case C-108/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État, France): Syndicat des Producteurs
Indépendants (SPI) v Ministère de l’Économie, des Finan-                   in Case C-147/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ces et de l’Industrie (1)                                                  ties v French Republic (1)
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes                    (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality
— Common system of value added tax — Second indent of                       of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of Directive
Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Determination                                               76/160/EEC)
of relevant place for tax purposes — Advertising services
Inclusion of services provided through the intermediary of a
                              third party)                                                             (2001/C 173/36)
                           (2001/C 173/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-108/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                  In Case C-147/00: Commission of the European Communities
EC from the Conseil d’État, France, for a preliminary ruling in            (Agents: J.-F. Pasquier and G. Valero Jordana) v French Republic
the proceedings pending before that court between Syndicat                  (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a
des Producteurs Indépendants (SPI) and Ministère de l’Econom-               declaration that
ie, des Finances et de l’Industrie — on the interpretation of
Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  —     by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that,
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                        within 10 years of notification of Council Directive
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                     76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                          of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1), the quality of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann                     bathing water conformed to the limit values set in
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                         accordance with the directive, contrary to Article 4(1)
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                           thereof,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                            —     by failing to carry out sampling operations, the minimum
                                                                                frequency of which is laid down in the Annex to Directive
The second indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive               76/160 in respect of all parameters and all bathing
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of                     waters, contrary to Article 6(1), and
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as
                                                                            —     by failing to carry out the sampling operations for the
applying not only to advertising services supplied directly and invoiced
                                                                                ‘total coliform’ parameter,
by the supplier to a taxable advertiser but also to services supplied
indirectly to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn
invoices them to the advertiser.
                                                                            the French Republic has failed to take all measures to comply
                                                                            with its obligations under Directive 76/160 and has failed to
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of that
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                  directive, — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken,
                                                                            N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                            D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/22                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.    Declares that,                                                         (J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, assisted by B. Wägen-
                                                                             baur), supported by the French Republic (K. Rispal-Bellanger
      —     by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure          and C. Vasak), Freistaat Thüringen, represented by
            that, within 10 years of the notification of Council             G. M. Berrisch, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
            Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning               in Luxembourg at the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue
            the quality of bathing water, the quality of bathing water       Mathias Hardt and Molkerei und Weichkäserei K-H. Zimmer-
            conformed to the limit values set in accordance with the         mann GmbH, established in Falkenhain, (Germany), represent-
            directive, contrary to Article 4(1) thereof;                     ed by P. Lotze and S. Lehr, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue
      —     by failing to carry out sampling operations in line with         Heinrich Heine, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of
            the minimum frequency laid down in the Annex to                  V.Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
            Directive 76/160 in respect of inland bathing waters,            and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, R. Grass,
            contrary to Article 6(1), and                                    Registrar, made an order on 26 October 2000 the operative
                                                                             part of which is as follows:
      —     by failing to carry out sampling operations for the ‘total
            coliform’ parameter,
                                                                             1.     The appeal is dismissed;
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Directive 76/160;                            2.     Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel
                                                                                GmbH are ordered to pay the costs;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             3.     The French Republic and the Freistaat Thüringen shall bear
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 33 of 6 February 1999.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)
                         of 26 October 2000
in Case C-447/98 P: Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(Community protection of designations of origin — Com-
mission Regulation registering the designation ‘Altenburger
                                                                                of 15 December 2000
Ziegenkäse’ — Application for annulment — Inadmissibility
                — Appeal manifestly ill-founded)
                                                                             in Case C-86/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (2001/C 173/37)                                   the Consiglio di Stato): Questore Macerata v Claudio
                                                                                Peroni (1)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
                                                                             identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/38)
In Case C-447/98 P, Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH, and
Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH, both established in Altenburg
(Germany), represented by M. Lochschelder and T. Klingbell,                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
of the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 rue Carlo Hemmer — appeal
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in                                             in the European Court Reports)
Case T-109/97 Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene
Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission [1998] ECR II-3533,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the               In Case C-86/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Consiglio di


title: Case T-354/02: Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.2.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/31
Trade mark or        sign   Word marks INTESA (two Italian               The applicant claims that the Court should:
opposed:                    marks, one international mark
                            and a Greek, a Finnish, a Swedish,
                            a UK and an Irish mark), for goods           —     annul Commission Decision C(2002) 3370 dated 9 Sep-
                            in classes 9, 14, 18 and 21, in the                tember 2002;
                            case of one of the two Italian
                            marks, and class 3 in the case of            —     order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs
                            the others. The opposition was
                            directed against the goods men-
                            tioned in the application as being
                            in classes 3 and 21.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Ruling of the Opposition    opposition partially upheld (risk
Division:                   of confusion in the case of goods
                            of class 3).                                 The contested decision requires the Member States to amend
                                                                         the national marketing authorisations as listed in annex I
Decision of the Board of    appeal dismissed.                            to the Decision. The amendments concern the marketing
Appeal:                                                                  authorisations for Capoten and associated names, to produce
                                                                         a harmonised summary of product characteristics.
Pleas in law:               —      relevance of the phonetic dif-
                                   ference between the conflict-
                                   ing marks                             The applicant represents the various subsidiary companies that
                                                                         are the marketing holders for Capoten throughout the EU.
                            —      conceptual           difference       Capoten, based on the active substance captopril, is a medicinal
                                   between the marks                     product commonly know as an ACE-inhibitor. The product
                                                                         was first authorised in the EU in 1980.
                            —      no risk of confusion between
                                   the conflicting marks.
                                                                         The authorisations for Capoten in the EU were obtained under
                                                                         national marketing authorisation procedures, pursuant to
                                                                         Directive 65/65/EEC ( 1). As a result, some differences existed
                                                                         between the authorisations in the EU Member States as regards
                                                                         the wording and extent of information given. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the therapeutic indications were similar in all
                                                                         Member States.
                                                                         Following patent expiry in the individual Member States,
Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-Myers
                                                                         generic captopril products have been authorised in those
Squibb International Corporation against the Commission
                                                                         states. The applicant believes that after an attempt to achieve
               of the European Communities
                                                                         mutual recognition in Italy of the authorisation by France of
                                                                         one of those generic products, Italy referred the matter to the
                                                                         Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The rationale
                       (Case T-354/02)                                   of the referral was that the therapeutic indications in the
                                                                         summary of product characteristics were different and that a
                                                                         harmonisation was necessary for public health reasons. The
                        (2003/C 44/61)                                   contested decision was adopted following the referral.
                 (Language of the case: English)                         In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                         contested decision is invalid on the ground of lack of
                                                                         competence of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                                                                         Medicinal Products, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
                                                                         Products and the Commission. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                was not in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
European Communities on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-                     human use ( 2). The existence of divergent national decisions
Myers Squibb International Corporation, Brussels, Belgium,               regarding the authorisation of a product is a necessary, but not
represented by David Anderson QC, Kelyn Bacon, Barrister                 a sufficient condition for such a referral. According to the
and Ian Dodds-Smith, Solicitor.                                          applicant, the referring body must additionally identify the
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/32                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
question to be considered and that question must relate to the             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
quality, safety or efficacy of the product. The applicant claims
that these conditions were not satisfied.
The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision
infringed essential procedural requirements. According to the
applicant, the procedure breached the applicant’s rights of                Pleas in law and main arguments
defence and its right to be heard. The applicant was not given
the opportunity to comment on the key amendments to the
Capoten Summary of Product Characteristics. The procedure
also infringed the timetable provided for in Article 32 of                 In the applicants’ submission, it is apparent from the contested
Directive 12001/83 and in the Commission’s Notice to                       decision that Poste Italiane SpA was continuously in deficit in
Applicants (1998 version).                                                 the postal services sector from 1994 to 1999 and that it
                                                                           received State resources which served to offset the deficits. In
                                                                           Article 2 of the decision, the Commission decided that that
The applicant invokes also the infringement of rules of                    State subsidy to Poste Italiane SpA did not constitute State aid
Community law, like the principle of equal treatment, the duty             under Article 87(1) EC.
to give reasons, the principle of legitimate expectations and
the principle of proportionality.
Finally, the applicant claims that the contested decision is               The applicants submit that, so far as concerns the offsetting of
vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.                                 losses of those postal services which, although forming part of
                                                                           the universal service, have been opened up to competition, the
                                                                           decision is incompatible with Article 87(1) EC as interpreted
( 1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-        in the Commission decision of 19 June 2002 (2). By that
     mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-         decision the Commission established that the use of State
     trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ         resources to offset losses recorded by a postal undertaking in
     1965, p. 369).                                                        the sector of postal services that form part of the universal
( 2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the            service but are opened up to competition infringes
     Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to          Article 87(1) of the Treaty as a cross-subsidy not capable of
     medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, p. 67).                   being approved where the losses are caused by rates of charges
                                                                           which do not cover costs and which the postal undertaking is
                                                                           not required to apply by a State measure.
                                                                           The applicants contend that the decision is all the less
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Deutsche Post                         compatible with Article 87(1) EC in so far as it relates to loss-
AG and DHL International S.r.l. against the Commission                     making postal services which do not form part of the universal
                  of the European Communities                              service and have been opened up to competition for a long
                                                                           time. Since the Italian postal operator has been recording only
                                                                           losses for 50 years and those losses can therefore only have
                           (Case T-358/02)                                 been covered by State resources, the Commission should not
                                                                           have ‘neglected’ the offsetting in respect of those postal services
                           (2003/C 44/62)                                  from State resources but would have been obliged in that
                                                                           respect too to examine whether there was a cross-subsidy
                                                                           incompatible with Article 87(1) EC.
                    (Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  The applicants further submit that no reason is stated as to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 why the Commission in the contested decision, in contrast to
European Communities on 5 December 2002 by Deutsche                        its decision of 19 June 2002, recognised the cross-subsidy as
Post AG, established in Bonn (Germany), and DHL Inter-                     involving a net extra cost which could be offset in the ‘general
national S.r.l., established in Rozzano (Italy), represented by            economic interest’. At the same time, therefore, there is an
J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers.                                        infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
                                                                           EC.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—      annul Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March                   Finally, the decision infringes the general prohibition of
       2002 on the aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (1);         discrimination under Article 12 EC, since the Commission has


title: Case C-173/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria). lodged on 14 May 2009 — Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v National Health Insurance Fund

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria). lodged on 14 May 2009 — Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v National Health Insurance Fund
   (Case C-173/09)
   2009/C 180/49
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia — grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georgi Ivanov Elchinov

      Defendant: National Health Insurance Fund

      Interested party: Ministry of Health

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) … to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is impossible to give in a Bulgarian healthcare institution the specific treatment that has been the subject of an application for the issue of form E 112, it is to be assumed that this treatment is not financed from the budget of the National Health Insurance Fund (NZOK) or the Ministry of Health and, conversely, where such treatment is financed from the budget of the NZOK or the Ministry of Health it is to be assumed that it can be given in a Bulgarian healthcare institution?

               2.

               Is the phrase ‘the treatment in question cannot be provided for the person concerned within the territory of the Member State in which he resides’ in the second paragraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as encompassing cases in which the treatment that is given in the territory of the Member State in which the insured person resides is much less effective and more radical than the treatment that is given in another Member State, or does it encompass only those cases in which the person concerned cannot be treated without undue delay?

               3.

               Having regard to the principle of procedural autonomy: is the national court obliged to take account of binding directions given to it by a higher court when its decision is set aside and the case referred back for reconsideration if there is reason to assume that such directions are inconsistent with Community law?

               4.

               If the particular treatment concerned cannot be given on the territory of the Member State in which the person with medical insurance resides is it then sufficient, in order for that Member State to be obliged to issue authorisation for treatment in another Member State under Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, for the type of treatment concerned to be included within the benefits provided for under the legislation of the first mentioned Member State even if that legislation does not expressly stipulate the specific method of treatment?

               5.

               Are Article 49 EC and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 inconsistent with a national provision such as Article 36(1) of the Law on health insurance, according to which persons insured under the compulsory scheme have the right to receive partially or in full the value of the expenses for medical care abroad only if they have received a preliminary permit?

               6.

               Must the national court oblige the competent institution of the State in which the patient has medical insurance to issue the document for treatment abroad (form E 112) if it considers the refusal to issue such a document to be unlawful, where the application for the issue of the document has been lodged before the treatment was carried out abroad and the treatment has been completed by the date on which the court decision is pronounced?

               7.

               If the aforementioned question should be answered in the affirmative and the court should consider the refusal of authorisation for treatment abroad to be unlawful how is the person with medical insurance to be reimbursed the costs of his treatment:

                           a)

                           directly by the State in which he is insured or by the State in which the treatment has been given, following submission of authorisation for treatment abroad;

                           b)

                           to what extent, if the range of benefits that are provided for under the legislation of the Member State where he resides should differ from the range of benefits provided for under the legislation of the Member State in which the treatment is given; in the light of Article 49 EC, which prohibits restrictions on freedom to provide services?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1974 L 148, p. 35) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1)


title: Case T-564/14: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/61

         Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM
   (Case T-564/14) (1)

   (2016/C 098/78)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 360, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-348/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 21 July 2014  — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Maria Bucura v SC Bancpost SA
   (Case C-348/14)
   2014/C 361/04
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Câmpulung

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Bucura

      Defendant: SC Bancpost SA

      Intervening party: Vasile Ciobanu

      Third party: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA

      Questions referred

               1)

               For the purposes of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), where authorisation for enforcement has been given in the absence of the consumer, is a national court seised of an objection to enforcement of a credit agreement relating to the issue of a credit card such as an American Express Gold card required, as soon as it has at its disposal the fact and points of laws necessary to that end, to evaluate, including of its own motion, whether the commission provided for in the agreement in question is unfair, namely: (a) — commission for issuing the card; (b) — commission for annual management of the card; (c) — commission for annual management of the additional card; (d) — commission for renewing the card; (e) — commission for replacing the card; (f) — commission for changing the PIN; (g) — commission for withdrawing cash from cash machines and over the counter (the bank’s own or those of other banks in Romania or abroad); (h) — commission for payment of goods and/or services supplied by traders abroad or in Romania; (i) — commission for printing and sending statements of account; (j) — commission for viewing balances on cash machines; (k) — commission for late payment; (l) — commission for exceeding the credit limit; (m) — commission for unjustified refusal to pay — notwithstanding the fact that the amount of such commission is not specified in the agreement?

               2)

               Is the following statement concerning annual interest: ‘Interest on credit shall be calculated by reference to the daily balance, broken down by item (payments, cash withdrawals, charges and commission) and the daily rate of interest for the calculation period. Interest shall calculated on a daily basis in accordance with the following formula: the sum achieved by multiplying the amount of each item on the daily balance by the daily rate of interest applicable on the relevant day; the daily rate of interest shall be calculated as the ratio between the annual rate and 360 days’ — which is of essential importance in the context of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, which has similar wording — drafted in plain intelligible language within the meaning of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/13/EEC?

               3)

               Does the failure to indicate the amount of commission due under the agreement and the mere inclusion therein of the method of calculating interest, without any indication of the actual amount, allow the national court — pursuant to Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (2), as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 (3), and to Council Directive 93/13/EEC — to find that the failure to provide such information in the consumer credit agreement has the effect of rendering the credit granted commission and interest-free?

               4)

               Does the co-debtor under a credit agreement fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ in Article 2(a) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 87/102/EEC?

               5)

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is the principle of the effectiveness of the rights conferred by directives satisfied where the amount of interest, commission and charges is made known only to the principal debtor by means of the monthly statement of account or the posting of a notice at the bank’s headquarters?

               6)

               Is Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the bank is required to inform in writing both the debtor and the co-debtor of the maximum credit limit, annual interest and costs applicable from the date on which the credit agreement is concluded, and of the circumstances under which those terms may be altered, the procedure for terminating the credit agreement, and any change made during the term of the credit agreement relating to annual interest or costs incurred after the credit agreement is signed, at the time those changes are made, by registered post with acknowlegment of receipt or by means of a statement of account provided free of charge?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Council Directive of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).

      (3)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).