title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 1998 in Case C-35/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fixing of business tariffs - Customs agents - Legislation reinforcing the effects of an agreement)

text:
5.9.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 278/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the EC
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                    Treaty, consisting of setting a compulsory tariff for all
                                                                          customs agents, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
                       of 18 June 1998                                    its obligations under Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;
in    Case   C-35/96: Commission of the             European
             Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(Action for failure to fulfil obligations Ð Agreements,
decisions and concerted practices Ð Fixing of business               (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
tariffs Ð Customs agents Ð Legislation reinforcing the
                   effects of an agreement)
                        (98/C 278/01)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                           of 18 June 1998
                                                                     in    Case    C-43/96: Commission of the             European
In Case C-35/96: Commission of the European                                        Communities v. French Republic (1)
Communities (Agent: Enrico Traversa) v. Italian Republic
                                                                     (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Sixth Council Directive
(Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri) Ð
                                                                     77/388/EEC Ð Article 17(2) and (6) Ð Right to deduct
application for a delcaration that, by adopting and
                                                                     VAT Ð Exclusions provided for by national rules
maintaining in force a law which, in granting the relative
                                                                                predating the Sixth Directive)
decision-making power, requires the Consiglio Nazionale
degli Spedizionieri Doganali (National Council of                                              (98/C 278/02)
Customs Agents) to adopt a decision by an association of
undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty in
that it sets a compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the                          (Language of the case: French)
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges: G. Cosmas,                              published in the European Court Reports)
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                     In Case C-43/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v.
1. declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a             French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins, assisted by G.
     law which, in granting the relative decision-making             Mignot), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
     power, requires the National Council of Customs                 and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Ridley) Ð application for
     Agents (Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri Doga-           a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation
     nali Ð CNSD) to adopt a decision by an association              which denies taxable persons the right to deduct value


title: Case T-502/07: Action brought on 31 December 2007 — IIC-Intersport International Corporation v OHIM — McKenzie Corporation (McKENZIE)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/59

         Action brought on 31 December 2007 — IIC-Intersport International Corporation v OHIM — McKenzie Corporation (McKENZIE)
   (Case T-502/07)
   (2008/C 51/108)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: IIC-Intersport International Corporation GmbH (Ostermundigen, Switzerland) (represented by: P.J.M. Steinhauser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd (Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appealed decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 October 2007 in Case R 1425/2006-2 and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 September 2006 by which the opposition of Intersport has been received in respect of certain of the goods concerned.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The McKenzie Corporation Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative mark ‘McKENZIE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25, 36 and 37

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IIC-Intersport International Corporation GmbH

      Mark or sign cited: The earlier Community figurative mark ‘MCKINLEY’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28 and the earlier Community word mark ‘MCKINLEY’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition in its entirety and allowed registration to proceed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-94/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/19

         Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-94/06)
   (2006/C 86/37)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Amparo Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and management of environmental noise or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/49 into national law expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.


title: Case C-464/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, by order of that court of 29 September 2004, in the case of Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM and Others against Comune di Milano, and Aem Spa

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, by order of that court of 29 September 2004, in the case of Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM and Others against Comune di Milano, and Aem Spa
   (Case C-464/04)
   (2005/C 19/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia, Milano, Sezione I (Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Milan, Division I) (Italy) of 29 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM and Others against Comune di Milano on the following questions:

               —

               Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, as applied in the circumstances at issue in this case, be held to be compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty as interpreted in the judgments in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, when it is invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost control by operation of law over the company limited by shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4 %) as a shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?

               —

               Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994 converted into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, be held to be compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty as interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, when it is invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost control by operation of law over the company limited by shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4 %) as a shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, and thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?

               —

               Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code be held to be compatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-58/99, C-503/99 and C-483/99, C-98/01 and C-463/00, inasmuch as, when applied in specific cases, it brings about a result that is contrary to another provision of national law (in particular Article 2(1)(d) of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994) which itself complies with Article 56 of the EC Treaty and consequently reflects, in respect of the conditions on which special powers are exercised and the requirements to which they are subject, the principles established in that connection by the judgments of the Court of Justice cited above?


title: Case T-327/12: Action brought on 16 July 2012 — Simca Europe v OHIM — PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/33

         Action brought on 16 July 2012 — Simca Europe v OHIM — PSA Peugeot Citroën (Simca)
   (Case T-327/12)
   2012/C 287/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Simca Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Haberkamm, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PSA Peugeot Citroën GIE (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 April 2012 in Case R 645/2011-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs, including the costs for the applicant’s counsel.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Simca’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 6 489 371

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: PSA Peugeot Citroën GIE

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the applicant was acting in bad faith at the time when it filed the application

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the mark was declared invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-137/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2009 — M.M. Josemans and the Burgemeester of Maastricht v Rechtbank Maastricht

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2009 — M.M. Josemans and the Burgemeester of Maastricht v Rechtbank Maastricht
   (Case C-137/09)
   2009/C 141/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicants

               :

                           1.

                           M.M. Josemans

                           2.

                           Burgemeester of Maastricht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a regulation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the access of non-residents to coffeeshops, fall wholly or partly within the scope of the EC Treaty, with particular reference to the free movement of goods and/or services, or of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 12 in conjunction with Article 18 of the EC Treaty?

               2.

               In so far as the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the free movement of goods and/or services are applicable, does a prohibition of the admission of non-residents to coffeeshops form a suitable and proportionate means of reducing drug tourism and the public nuisance which accompanies it?

               3.

               Is the prohibition of discrimination against citizens on grounds of nationality, as laid down in Article 12 in conjunction with Article 18 of the EC Treaty, applicable to the rules on the access of non-residents to coffeeshops if and in so far as the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the free movement of goods and services are not applicable?

               4.

               If so, is the resulting indirect distinction between residents and non-residents justified, and is the prohibition of the admission of non-residents to coffeeshops a suitable and proportionate means of reducing drug tourism and the public nuisance which accompanies it?


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-298/01 (1)

   (2004/C 94/77)
   By order of 11 December 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-298/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Silandro Division, by orders of that court of 2 August 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz (Cases C-274/96a and C-274/96)

text:
 5 . 10 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 294/7
goods under subheading 30 of the Common Customs Tariff                 criminal proceedings against him should take place in
or another subheading ?                                                another language where nationals of that State in the same
                                                                       circumstances enjoy such a right ?
 (') OJ No L 94 , 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by                 Sundsvall, by order of that court of 6 August 1996 in the
orders of that court of 3 July 1996 in criminal proceedings                  case of Anne Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket
pending before it against Antonio Nardi , Alfredo Cipriani                                         Case C-275 /96 )
                   and Bartolomeo Terranova
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/14 )
          ( Cases C-271 /96, C-272/96 and C-273/96 )
                             96/C 294/ 12
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Kammarätten i
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Sundsvall ( Administrative Court of Appeal, Sundsvall ), of
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                          6 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome             14 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anne
District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 3 July 1996 ,        Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket on the following
which were received at the Court Registry on 12 August                 questions :
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings
pending before it against Antonio Nardi , Alfredo Cipriani
and Bartolomeo Terranova .                                             1 . Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (') apply at all to a
                                                                            person who, before the Regulation became applicable in
                                                                            Sweden, moved from Finland to Sweden and took up
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                      employment here, but who was not in employment in
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice                 Sweden when the Regulation came into force in Sweden
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                   and did not come here as an unemployed person after
C-58/95 (1).                                                                the Regulation became applicable in Sweden, but only
                                                                            stayed here at that time as an unemployed person after a
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                                   previous period of employment and then drew Swedish
                                                                            unemployment benefit. That is to say, can a person in
                                                                            that situation claim that, after 1 January 1994, on the
                                                                            basis of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , he or she is
                                                                            covered by Swedish legislation as regards entitlement to
                                                                            Swedish social security benefits in the form of parental
                                                                            benefit ?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Bolzano, Silandro Division, by orders of
that court of 2 August 1996 in the criminal proceedings                If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following
pending before that court against Horst Otto Bickel and                questions also need to be answered :
                             Ulrich Franz
                (Cases C-274/96a and C-274/96 )                        2 . Is Article 13 ( 2 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , in
                           ( 96/C 294/ 13                                   conjunction with Article 10 ( b ) of Regulation
                                                                            No 574/72 ( 2 ), to be understood as meaning that a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member State is not precluded from introducing a
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                               condition of residence in its territory in order for a
Circondariale ( District Magistrates ' Court ), Bolzano,                    person who has ceased working there to remain covered
Silandro Division, of 2 August 1996 , which was received at                 by that country's legislation as regards cash maternity
                                                                            benefits ?
the Court Registry on 12 August 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz on the following            3 . Is Article 22 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 to be
question :                                                                  understood as meaning that, if a person begins to draw
                                                                            cash maternity benefits in a competent State, that person
Do the principles of non-discrimination within the meaning                  retains entitlement, on the conditions applying
of the first paragraph of Article 6 , the right of citizens of the          according to that Article , to those cash benefits when
Union to move and reside within the meaning of Article 8a                   moving to another Member State only on condition that
and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of                   the person concerned fulfils all the provisions of the
Article 59 of the Treaty mean that a citizen of the Union who               legislation applied by the competent country, that is to
is a national of a Member State and resides in another                      say including the requirement, laid down in those
Member State must be granted the right to require that                      provisions , that the person concerned must be resident


title: Case F-67/11: Action brought on 13 July 2011 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/29

         Action brought on 13 July 2011 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-67/11)
   2011/C 319/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request relating to the defendant’s compliance with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 June 2010 in Case F-56/09 and to the compensation for the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the request of 28 February 2011;

               —

               Annul, quatenus opus est, the note of 24 June 2011;

               —

               Declare that the European Commission has unlawfully failed to adopt the measures necessary for compliance with paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 June 2010 in Case F-56/09, with particular reference to the destruction of the photographs referred to in that paragraph and the provision to the applicant of information relating to the destruction;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 2 831 by way of compensation for the damage caused to the applicant to date as a result of the failure to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 9 June 2010, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, from tomorrow until the date on which the sum of EUR 2 831 is received by the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 12 per day for each additional day of failure on the part of the Commission to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 9 June 2010, from tomorrow until the 180th day following 4 March 2011, together with interest on the sum of EUR 12 per day at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, from the 181st day following 4 March 2011 until the date on which the sum of EUR 12 per day is received by the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 15 per day for each additional day of failure on the part of the Commission to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 9 June 2010, from the 181st day following 4 March 2011 until the 270th day following 4 March 2011, together with interest on the sum of EUR 15 per day at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, from the 271st day following 4 March 2011 until the date on which the sum of EUR 15 per day is received by the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 18 per day for each additional day of failure on the part of the Commission to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 9 June 2010, from the 271st day until the 360th day following 4 March 2011, together with interest on the sum of EUR 18 per day at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, from the 361st day following 4 March 2011 until the date on which the sum of EUR 18 per day is received by the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 25 per day for each additional day of failure on the part of the Commission to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 9 June 2010, from the 361st day following 4 March 2011 ad infinitum, to be paid periodically to the applicant at the end of every 360-day period from the 361st day following 4 March 2011;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-15/17: Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/43

         Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)
   (Case T-15/17)
   (2017/C 063/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimitrios Mitrakos (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Bakopanou, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Ignacio Belasco Baquedano (Viana, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘YAMAS’ — Application for registration No 13 645 478

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 532/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, as well as the decision given by the Opposition Division which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition and allow that the registration of the trade mark applied for be registered;

               —

               order the EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-85/05: Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Dimos Ano Liosia, a self-administering local entity against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/39

         Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Dimos Ano Liosia, a self-administering local entity against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-85/05)
   (2005/C 106/78)
   Language of the Case: Greek
   An action was brought on 16 February 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by Dimos Ano Liosion, established in Ano Liosia, Attica, and by Theodora Goula, Argiris Argiropoulos, Ioannis Manis, Eleni Dalipi, Vasilis Papagrigoriou and Yiorgos Frankalexis, residents of Ano Liosia, represented by Y-E. Kalvros, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul in its entirety Commission Decision No 5522 of 21 December 2004 concerning the grant of assistance by the Cohesion Fund for Phase 2 of construction works for a hygienic infill site for domestic waste in Skalistiri in the Deme of Phylis in the Western Attica region of the Hellenic Republic (No CCI:2004 GR 16 C PE 001) and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   In support of their action the applicants claim that the contested decision is contrary to the objectives of the maintenance, protection and development of the quality of the environment, the protection of human health and prudent and rational use of natural resources, as provided for in Articles 2, 4(1) and 174 EC. That is owing to the fact that under that decision the district of Ano Liosia, which is regarded by the applicants as polluted and degraded, is obliged to accept much greater quantities of waste than the two other proposed areas for waste management in Attica. In the same context the applicants raise various problems concerning the siting chosen for construction of the facility, such as the fact that essentially it constitutes an extension of an existing establishment, the relevant area has been designated as an area of absolute protection of the natural environment and is in part wooded and in part to be reafforested, is not secured from private view and, according to the environmental impact study, is not the most appropriate area.
   The applicants further claim that the contested decision is contrary to the obligations incumbent on the Hellenic Republic to:

               —

               take appropriate measures to encourage the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness, in particular by the development of clean technologies which are more sparing in their use of natural resources, and to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, as provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/156; (1)

               —

               adhere to the plans for restricting, recycling and processing of waste, as provided for in Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 75/442; (2)

               —

               verify in advance that the new installation will be operated in such a way that appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution in order to ensure that no significant pollution is caused, as provided for in Article 3 of Directive 96/61. (3)

      (1)  Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).

      (2)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39).

      (3)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ L 257, p. 26).


title: Case C-278/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 4 June 2012 — A. Adil; other party: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 4 June 2012 — A. Adil; other party: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel
   (Case C-278/12)
   2012/C 287/30
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: A. Adil

      Other party: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code (1) be interpreted in such a way as to preclude the exercise of a national power, as conferred in Article 50 of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Law on Foreign Nationals 2000) and set out in greater detail in Article 4.17a of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Decree on Foreign Nationals 2000), to carry out checks on persons in areas behind internal borders with a view to establishing whether those persons satisfy the requirements for lawful residence laid down by the Member State concerned?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Does Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code preclude national checks, such as those referred to in Article 50 of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000, from being carried out on the basis of general information and experience regarding the illegal residence of persons at the place where the check is to be carried out, as referred to in Article 4.17a(2) of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000, or should there be concrete indications, when such checks are carried out, that an individual on whom checks are to be carried out is illegally resident in the Member State concerned?

                           (b)

                           Does Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code preclude such a check from being carried out with a view to obtaining the general information and experience-based data regarding illegal residence referred to in (a) above, if this occurs to a limited extent?

               3.

               Must Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code be interpreted in such a way that the restriction of the power to carry out checks in such a way as that described in a statutory rule such as Article 4.17a of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 constitutes a sufficient safeguard for the purpose of ensuring that a check cannot in fact have the effect of a border check prohibited by Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).


title: Case C-356/08: Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/10

         Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-356/08)
   (2008/C 247/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and A. Böhlke, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by imposing an obligation on every medical doctor becoming established in Oberösterreich (Land of Upper Austria) to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank to which fees for benefits in kind are to be transferred by the health insurance funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The mandatory opening of an account, to which, moreover, all fees for benefits in kind from health insurance funds must be transferred, is disproportionate to the need to ensure the proper calculation and levying of the contributions payable to the medical councils by medical doctors established in Oberösterreich. The disputed rules for that reason amount to unjustified restrictions of three fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, namely the freedom of establishment of medical doctors established in other Member States and that of banks, their freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital.


title: Case T-150/00: Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Groupement Européen des Producteurs de Verre Plat against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.8.2000
—     By failing to base its decision upon the criteria prescribed        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in the applicable directive, the Commission erred in law.
                                                                          The applicant is an international association of European flat
—     By failing to accept that exceptional circumstances were            glass producers. It seeks annulment of a Commission decision
      present which could justify reaching a different con-               relating to aid granted by Italy to Sangalli Manfredonia Vetro
      clusion than that of the CPMP, the Commission made a                in connection with the construction of a flat-glass factory at
      manifest error of appreciation, violated the rights of the          Manfredonia in southern Italy.
      applicant to have a fair, neutral and careful examination
      of its products and failed to respect the applicable
      legislation.                                                        The applicant maintains that the regional aid project in issue
                                                                          should have been notified to the Commission in the context
                                                                          of the multi-sectoral framework on regional aid. It doubts that
—     The decision fails to explain, in a clear and consistent
                                                                          the subsidy decision was taken by the Italian authorities on a
      manner, why the two products were harmful, and is
                                                                          date prior to that of the entry into force of the framework
      therefore vitiated by inadequate reasoning.
                                                                          scheme. Moreover, the project exceeds the parameters of the
                                                                          regional scheme authorised by previous decisions of the
—     The decision fails to respect the property rights of                Commission.
      the applicant as these are protected by the European
      Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
      Fundamental Freedoms.                                               In addition, the applicant disputes the Commission’s con-
                                                                          clusion that Sangalli and the Sangalli Vetro group were
                                                                          medium-sized undertakings and that they were therefore
                                                                          entitled to receive an additional 15 % by way of gross grant
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-        equivalent (GGE). It postulates that the method used to define
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ
                                                                          undertakings covered by the notion of small and medium-
    1965, 22, p. 369).                                                    sized enterprises (SMEs) is contrary to Article 87(3)(a) and (e)
                                                                          EC. That method prompted the Commission unlawfully to
                                                                          authorise the grant of aid to undertakings which are not SMEs.
                                                                          Lastly, the Commission committed a manifest error in its
                                                                          assessment of the facts in deciding that the investment aid in
                                                                          issue was in accordance with the Commission’s previous
                                                                          decisions approving the aid scheme provided for in Law
                                                                          No 488/92. Contrary to the requirement laid down by that
Action brought on 6 June 2000 by Groupement Européen                      law, the project in issue was not economically viable. The
des Producteurs de Verre Plat against the Commission of                   Commission’s assessment in that regard was, on the facts,
                   the European Communities                               manifestly erroneous.
                         (Case T-150/00)
                         (2000/C 247/53)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain
                                                                          against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2000 by Groupement                                                 (Case T-151/00)
Européen des Producteurs de Verre Plat, established in Brussels,
represented by Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the
                                                                                (2000/C 247/54)
Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
—     annul decision C(99) 2895 final of the Commission of                An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      the European Communities of 20 July 1999 — State aid                Commission of the European Communities was brought
      C86/98 (ex NN 135/98 — Italy — aid granted to Sangalli              before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      Manfredonia Vetro, Apulia (Italy));                                 on 7 June 2000 by Le Laboratoire du Bain, established at
                                                                          Nontron (France), represented by Claude Lazarus, of the Paris
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.                       Bar.


title: Case C-171/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2015 — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) and Others

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 April 2015 — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) and Others
   (Case C-171/15)
   (2015/C 213/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Connexxion Taxi Services BV

      Respondents: Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport), Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV

      Questions referred

               1

                           (a)

                           Does EU law, in particular Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, preclude national law from obliging a contracting authority to assess, by application of the principle of proportionality, whether a tenderer which is guilty of grave professional misconduct must indeed be excluded?

                           (b)

                           Is it significant in this regard that a contracting authority has stated in the tender conditions that a tender to which a ground for exclusion applies must be set aside and is not to be eligible for further substantive assessment?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative: does EU law preclude a situation in which the national courts fail to carry out an ‘unrestricted’ judicial review of an assessment conducted on the basis of the principle of proportionality, such as the assessment conducted by a contracting authority in the present case, but merely carry out a (‘marginal’) review as to whether the contracting authority could reasonably have come to the decision not to exclude a tenderer notwithstanding the fact that that tenderer was guilty of grave professional misconduct within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-398/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Reduction coupons issued by a manufacturer — Taxable amount in the hands of the retailer)

text:
C 44/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
                        of 16 January 2003                                  in Case C-12/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
in Case C-398/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Yorkshire Co-                     movement of goods — Directive 73/241/EEC — Cocoa and
  operatives Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise ( 1)                   chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter
                                                                            — Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the
                                                                            Member State of production under the sales name ‘chocolate’
(Sixth VAT Directive — Reduction coupons issued by a                        — Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member
manufacturer — Taxable amount in the hands of the                                                    State of marketing)
                              retailer)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/03)
                          (2003/C 44/02)                                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: English)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-12/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz
In Case C-398/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  Abad): Application for a declaration that, by prohibiting cocoa
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United                       and chocolate products to which vegetable fats other than
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                            cocoa butter have been added, and which are lawfully manufac-
before that tribunal between Yorkshire Co-operatives Ltd and                tured in Member States which authorise the addition of those
Commissioners of Customs & Excise, on the interpretation of
                                                                            fats, from being marketed in Spain under the name used for
Articles 11(A)(1)(a) and 11(C)(1) of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                            their marketing in the Member State of production, the
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                            Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                            President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rappor-
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                            teur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-                Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
er, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003,
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head                  in which it:
of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
16 January 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products
                                                                                which comply with the requirements as to minimum content
                                                                                laid down in point 1.16 of Annex I to Council Directive 73/
On a proper construction of Articles 11(A)(1)(a) and 11(C)(1) of
                                                                                241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the laws
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                      of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                                intended for human consumption to which vegetable fats other
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                                than cocoa butter have been added, and which are lawfully
assessment, when, on the sale of a product, the retailer allows the
                                                                                manufactured in Member States which authorise the addition
final consumer to settle the sale price partly in cash and partly by
                                                                                of those fats, from being marketed in Spain under the name
means of a reduction coupon issued by the manufacturer of that                    used for their marketing in the Member State of production, the
product, and the manufacturer reimburses to the retailer the amount
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
indicated on that coupon, the nominal value of that coupon must be
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
included in the taxable amount in the hands of that retailer.                     Article 28 EC);
                                                                            2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear the costs.
( 1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Action brought on 29 December 1997 by Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-612/97)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/27
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
and Mrs M. Lewis, represented by Rory Hutchings,
Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,                The applicant, the company which owns the vessel Albor
Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                                    Uno, alleges that the defendant failed to use its exclusive
                                                                   powers in the fisheries sector when the aforementioned
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        vessel was seized, and subsequently arrested, on 16 July
                                                                   1997 by a Moroccan patrol vessel on the ground that it
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages              was fishing 4,5 nautical miles off the Moroccan coast. The
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,                 applicant denies this and asserts that the vessel was
                                                                   13 miles offshore when it was seized. Moreover, the
                                                                   limited measures which the Commission took merely
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               consisted of visiting the vessel, drawing up an expert
    applicant's costs.                                             report and replying to a fax from the applicant. Although
                                                                   it is true that the Commission called a meeting of the EU-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Morocco Joint Committee, whose task it is to ensure the
                                                                   observance of fishing agreements, Morocco refused
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of              systematically to attend that meeting. The relase of the
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I          vessel was achieved after difficult negotiations undertaken
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been               directly and at personal level between the shipowner and
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  the relevant Moroccan authorities with no official
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        participation at any time, either on the part of the Spanish
                                                                   or Community authorities.
The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
Commission.                                                        In the applicant's view, the defendant's failure to act was
                                                                   detrimental to the right to a fair hearing of a Community
                                                                   undertaking and vessel and deprived them of protection
                                                                   since the only way of establishing the facts was by
                                                                   communicating with the Moroccan authorities, which was
                                                                   not done, and monitoring the situation by the Community
                                                                   was the only safeguard, which, by being delegated to the
Action brought on 10 December 1997 by Pescados
                                                                   Spanish authorities, was in fact denied. Moreover, the fact
Congelados Jogamar SL against the Commission of the
                                                                   that Morocco does not regard the GPS system as a means
                    European Communities
                                                                   of establishing a vessel's position and accepts only its
                        (Case T-311/97)                            naval radar reports is seriously detrimental to the rights of
                          (98/C 94/70)                             the defence of fishing vessels equipped with that system.
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   Finally, if it is indeed the Community which is competent
                                                                   by virtue of the fishing agreements, it falls to it to
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   denounce the total and complete ineffectiveness of an
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   agreement which deprives European Union citizens and
Instance of the European Communities on 10 December
                                                                   vessels of any protection, and to take measures to prevent
1997 by Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL, whose
                                                                   it or, on the contrary, to emend Community law.
registered office is at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain),
represented by Manuel de Cristóbal López, of the Madrid
Bar, with an address for service at 15 Calle Prim, Madrid.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð uphold this action for declaration of failure to act;
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1997 by Cordis Obst und
    declare that the European Commission's failure to
                                                                   Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH against the Commission of
    take action with regard to the seizure of the Albor
                                                                                the European Communities
    Uno constitutes a breach of the EEC Treaty (Article 38
    et seq.) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3954/92                                    (Case T-612/97)
    of 19 December 1992 on the conclusion of the
    Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector                                       (98/C 94/71)
    between the European Economic Community and the
    Kingdom of Morocco and laying down provisions for
    its implementation; declare that the European                                  (Language of the case: German)
    Commission should take action itself rather than
    delegate power to the national authorities in the
    fisheries sector; and make an express order requiring          An action against the Commission of the European
    the European Commission to pay the costs incurred.             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December                 Action brought on 31 December 1997 by Aduanas Pujol
1997 by Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH,                    Rubio, SA, and Others against the Commission of the
Ostrau, Federal Republic of Germany, represented by, and                               European Communities
having an address for service at the offices of, Gert Meier,
                                                                                (Case T-614/97)
Rechtsanwalt, 10 Jakordenstrasse, Cologne.
                                                                                (98/C 94/72)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Ð annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty
     and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission           An action against the Commission of the European
     of 24 October 1997 on the adoption of transitional             Communities was brought before the Court of First
     measures in favour of Cordis Obst und Gemüse                   Instance of the European Communities on 31 December
     Grosshandel GmbH under the common organisation                 1997 by Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and other Spanish
     of the market in bananas,                                      customs agents, represented by Santiago MunÄoz Machado,
                                                                    of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            2 Rue Gabriel Lipmann.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation to the
The applicant was founded in November 1990 and is a                      applicants, by way of non-contractual liability, for the
wholesale fruit business which operates in Saxony, thus in               damage alleged in the present application to the extent
the area of the former German Democratic Republic. On                    to which the Spanish State has not been found liable
its incorporation it absorbed parts of the former East                   by the national courts,
German farmer's cooperative in order to give the workers
of that concern the opportunity of continued employment.
In July 1991 a banana-ripening plant with an annual
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
capacity of 11 960 tonnes began operating. The contested
decision rejected the request made by the applicant in
accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/
93 for the grant of additional ripening licences amounting          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
to at least 5 000 tonnes as a transitional measure to
compensate for hardship which was not the applicant's
fault and had come about as a result of the rules on                The applicants state that the claim for damages which is
reference periods in Article 19(2) of the Regulation.               the subject matter of the present action does not arise
                                                                    from the loss of business as a result of the gradual
                                                                    removal of customs posts but rather from the actual costs
                                                                    of conversion (essentially dismissals) which they have had
In the applicant's view, the Community institutions were
                                                                    to incur as a result of the total and sudden abolition of
required in accordance with the principle of equal
                                                                    customs formalities between Member States of the
treatment to take account of the different starting
                                                                    Community. The applicants acknowledge that such
positions of old and new businesses. The Council was
                                                                    abolition of customs posts within the Community in view
already obliged to implement such special arrangements in
                                                                    of the creation of the internal market had already been
favour of the new businesses in the new German Länder.
                                                                    announced in Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome. None the
However, following the judgment of the Court of Justice
                                                                    less, the applicants point out that the steps provided for its
of the European Communities in Case C-280/93 (1) which
                                                                    creation were restricted to the abolition of customs duties,
accords the Council a wide legislative discretion, it is to be
                                                                    not of the customs posts themselves. The latter arises
assumed that the Council could leave it to the
                                                                    directly from Article 13 of the Single European Act.
Commission to arrange for appropriate compensation for
                                                                    Nevertheless, implementation of the mandate contained in
the special sacrifices required of the new businesses. That
                                                                    that provision was subject to the condition that it be
is all the more true inasmuch as, by Article 30 of
                                                                    gradual, a condition breached by the Community
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, the Commission was given
                                                                    legislature. This constitutes the first plea alleging
a broad framework within which to act. By failing, in
                                                                    unlawfulness.
breach of the principle of equal treatment, to make full
use of that framework, the Commission misused its
powers and infringed the Treaty.
                                                                    The applicants seek a finding of non-contractual liability
                                                                    against the Community authorities for the legislation
(1) Case C-280/93 Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973.             which brought into force simultaneously on 1 January
                                                                    1993 provisions abolishing customs formalities without
                                                                    providing for proper transitional measures for the
                                                                    retraining of customs agents.


title: Case C-436/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — E v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 12 and 15 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother — Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father — Scope)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — E v B
   (Case C-436/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 8, 12 and 15 - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother - Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father - Scope))
   2014/C 421/19
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E

      Defendant: B

      Operative part of the judgment

   Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which has been prorogued, under Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceases following a final judgment in those proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case T-275/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Michela Curto v Parliament

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/49

         Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Michela Curto v Parliament
   (Case T-275/17)
   (2017/C 239/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Michela Curto (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of 30 June 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to award the applicant an amount of EUR 10 000, or any other amount which the Court will deem appropriate, as compensation for the non-material harm suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that the defendant erred in holding that the disputed conduct was not improper and further erred in finding that it did not have the effect of undermining the applicant’s personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the duty to provide assistance

                           —

                           The applicant argues, inter alia, that the defendant failed to deal with the request for assistance seriously and expeditiously, as prescribed by the applicable case-law.


title: Case C-288/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde (Belgium) lodged on 2 June 2010 — Wamo BVBA v JBC NV and Modemakers Fashion NV

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde (Belgium) lodged on 2 June 2010 — Wamo BVBA v JBC NV and Modemakers Fashion NV
   (Case C-288/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Dendermonde

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Wamo BVBA
   Defendants:

               JBC NV

               Modemakers Fashion NV

      Question referred

   Does Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices preclude a national provision such as that laid down in Article 53 of the Wet van 14 juli 1991 betreffende de handelspraktijken en de voorlichting en bescherming van de consument (Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices and consumer information and protection, ‘WHP’) which prohibits announcements of price decreases and suggestions of such decreases during defined periods?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case C-14/06: Action brought on  11 January 2006  by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/11

         Action brought on 11 January 2006 by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-14/06)
   (2006/C 86/18)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2006 (lodged by fax on 6 January 2006) by the European Parliament, represented by Mr K. Bradley, Mr A. Neergaard and Mrs I. Klavina, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purpose of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;

               2.

               order Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 (1) exempts decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) from the marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/95 (2) on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to respect the conditions laid down for such exemptions by Article 5(1) of that Directive and has therefore exceeded the powers it derives from that provision. In so far as there exists scientific uncertainty as to the health and environmental consequences of DecaBDE use, the Commission has committed a manifest error in assessing the scientific evidence and failed to respect the precautionary principle. By extending the exemption to all the polymeric applications of DecaBDE, without exception, it has breached the principle of proportionality. The Commission has failed to provide a proper statement of reasons for its decision to exempt DecaBDE.

      (1)  Official Journal L 271, 15/10/2005 P. 0048 - 0050

      (2)  Official Journal L 037, 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case C-161/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 90/425/EEC - Veterinary checks - Failure to transpose)

text:
 No C 64/4              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 3 . 96
      1991 laying down the principles governing the                         the internal market, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
      organization of veterinary checks on animals entering                 obligations under Article 26 of that Directive;
      the Community from third countries and amending
      Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC,
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under              2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
      Article 30 (1 ) of that Directive;
                                                                      (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
 2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 December 1995
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94
                                                                      ( references for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado
                                                                      Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal
                                                                     proceedings against Lucas Emilio Sanz de Lera and
                                                                                Others (M
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (Capital movements — Non-member countries — National
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                     authorization for the transfer of banknotes)
                      of 14 December 1995                                                        ( 96/C 64/08 )
in Case C-161/94: Commission of the European
                  Communities v. Ireland (')
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/425/EEC —
           Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)
                            ( 96/C 64/07 )                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: English)                      In Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94 :
                                                                     references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
                                                                     from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia
In Case C-161/94 : Commission of the European                        Nacional ( High Court, Criminal Section ), Spain, for a
Communities ( Agents: Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James          preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
Macdonald Flett) v. Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley) —           before that court against Lucas Emilio Sanz de Lera ,
application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into         Raimundo Diaz Jimenez and Figen Kapanoglu — on the
force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            interpretation of Articles 73b, 73c ( 1 ) and 73d ( 1)(b ) of the
necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/425/EEC of             EC Treaty — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez
26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical                  Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live           of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
animals and products with a view to the completion of the            Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,
internal market ( OJ No L 224, 1990, p. 29 ), Ireland has            H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro,
failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in            Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
particular Article 26 thereof, and under the Treaty                  Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
establishing the European Community — the Court ( Fifth              14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.
Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  1 . Articles 73b (1 ) and 73d (1)(b) of the EC Treaty
judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:                                preclude rules which make the export of coins,
                                                                           banknotes or bearer cheques conditional on prior
                                                                           authorization but do not by contrast preclude a
                                                                           transaction of that nature being made conditional on a
1 . declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,            prior declaration. Such rules do not fall within the scope
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                of Article 73c (1 ) of the Treaty;
     comply with Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June
     1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks
     applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live             2 . Article 73b (1 ), in conjunction with Articles 73c and
     animals and products with a view to the completion of                 73d (1)(b) of the Treaty, may be relied on before


title: Case C-28/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by order of that Court of 23 October 2002 in the case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex Atikhimaton Aftokiniton against the Minister for Development

text:
22.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 70/11
Action brought on 23 January 2003 by the Commission                      —      The implementation programme of the Region of the
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                              Capital City of Brussels does not contain the information
                             Belgium                                            required pursuant to Table 2.3 of Decision 93/481/EEC
                                                                                as regards the number and capacity of collection systems
                                                                                discharging into receiving waters which are considered
                         (Case C-27/03)                                         ‘sensitive areas’.
                         (2003/C 70/17)                                  —      It is apparent from the part of the Walloon implemen-
                                                                                tation programme relating to the implementation of
                                                                                Article 3 of the directive in normal areas that the
                                                                                collection systems to which agglomerations with a popu-
                                                                                lation equivalent of more than 15 000 will be connected
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      will not reach their definitive capacity until 31 December
                                                                                2005, whereas the directive lays down a time-limit of
23 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                                31 December 2000. It is also apparent from the part of
Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and M. Van
Beek, acting as Agents.                                                         the Walloon programme relating to the implementation
                                                                                of Article 4 of the directive in normal areas that the
                                                                                water treatment plants to which agglomerations with a
                                                                                population equivalent of more than 15 000 and less than
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                150 000 will be connected will not reach their definitive
                                                                                capacity until 31 December 2005, whereas the directive
—     declare that,                                                             lays down a time-limit of 31 December 2000.
      in so far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels, the
      Flemish Region and the Walloon Region are concerned,               (1 ) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban
      the Kingdom of Belgium failed to ensure that systems for                waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).
      the collection and treatment of urban waste water were             (2 ) Commission Decision 93/481/EEC of 28 July 1993 concerning
      brought into operation on 31 December 1998, as                          formats for the presentation of national programmes as foreseen
                                                                              by Article 17 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ 1993 L 226,
      provided for in Άrticles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/
                                                                              p. 23).
      EEC (1),
      in so far as the Walloon Region is concerned, the
      Kingdom of Belgium has not forwarded to the Com-
      mission an implementation programme, as provided for
      in Article 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC, which complies
      with the directive from the point of view of the time-
      limits laid down; and
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                         Epikratias by order of that Court of 23 October 2002 in
      in so far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels is         the case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex
      concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has not forwarded                Atikhimaton Aftokiniton against the Minister for Devel-
      to the Commission an implementation programme which                                               opment
      complies fully with the format prescribed by Commission
      Decision 93/481/EEC ( 2);
                                                                                (Case C-28/03)
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 70/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—     As far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels and a         European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
      large number of agglomerations of the Flemish Region               (Council of State) of 23 October 2002, received at the Court
      are concerned, the time-limit of 31 December 1998 for              Registry on 24 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      the entry into service of systems for the collection and           case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex Atikhimaton
      treatment of urban waste water was not complied with.              Aftokiniton (Additional Insurance Fund for Motor Vehicle
      Discharges of urban waste water from 44 agglomerations             Accident Liability) against the Minister for Development on
      with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 in                the following question:
      the territory of the Walloon Region contribute to the
      pollution of Flanders and Netherlands territory and the
      North Sea coasts of Belgium and the Netherlands. The               Given the provisions of, in particular, Articles 15 and 16 of
      Walloon Region ought therefore to have applied                     First Council Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of
      Article 5(5) of the directive and made provision for               laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
      tertiary treatment for the agglomerations in question.             taking up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/12                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
than life assurance ( 1), as supplemented and amended by                Pleas in law and main arguments
Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC (2) and Third Council
Directive 92/49/EEC ( 3), and Articles 17 and 18 of First Council
Directive 79/267/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations           Under Article 7 of the General Conditions of the Contract , the
and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and             Court of First Instance of the European Communities and, on
pursuit of the business of direct life assurance (4), as amended        appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Communities have
and supplemented by Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC (5)             jurisdiction in any action concerning the validity, application
and Third Council Directive 92/96/EEC (6), may the national             and interpretation of the contract.
legislature provide that, where an insurance company is the
subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is
otherwise in a state of insolvency, claims arising from an              Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-
employment relationship with it are satisfied from the assets           mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its
which are included in its technical provisions in preference to         obligations under the contract.
claims of persons entitled to an insurance payment and of
successors to all or certain of their rights?
( 1) OJ L 228 of 16.08.1973, p. 3.
( 2) OJ L 172 of 04.07.1988, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 228 of 11.08.1992, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 63 of 13.03.1979, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 330 of 29.11.1990, p. 50.                                     Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
( 6) OJ L 360 of 09.12.1992, p. 1.                                      of the European Communities against ITEC-Instituto
                                                                                Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária
                                                                                (Case C-30/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/20)
Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
of the European Communities against ITEC-Instituto
           Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária                        An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa
                                                                        Comunitária was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities on 27 January 2003 by the
                         (Case C-29/03)                                 Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2003/C 70/19)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa              (a)   order the defendant to pay EUR 29 538,01, consisting of
Comunitária was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    EUR 26 105,97 as a capital amount and EUR 3 432,04
European Communities on 27 January 2003 (previously                           by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 January 2003)                5,25 %;
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an           (b)   order payment of EUR 3,75 per diem, by way of interest
address for service in Luxembourg.                                            at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full
                                                                              payment is made;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (c)   order the defendant to pay the costs.
(a)   order the defendant to pay EUR 69 089,84 consisting of
      EUR 62 236,65 as a capital amount and EUR 6 853,19
      by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      6,28 %;
(b)   order payment of EUR 10,71 per diem, by way of interest           Under Article 12(2) of the contract, the Court of First Instance
      at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full                 of the European Communities and, on appeal, the Court of
      payment is made;                                                  Justice of the European Communities have jurisdiction in any
                                                                        action concerning the validity, application and interpretation
(c)   order the defendant to pay the costs.                             of the contract.