title: Joined Cases C-318/11 and C-319/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Falun — Sweden) — Daimler AG (C-318/11), Widex A/S(C-319/11) v Skatteverket (Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 170 and 171 — Eighth VAT Directive — Article 1 — Directive 2008/9/EC — Article 3(a) — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Taxable persons established in one Member State and carrying out in another Member State only technical testing or research activities)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/5

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Falun — Sweden) — Daimler AG (C-318/11), Widex A/S(C-319/11) v Skatteverket
   (Joined Cases C-318/11 and C-319/11) (1)

   (Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 170 and 171 - Eighth VAT Directive - Article 1 - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 3(a) - Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Taxable persons established in one Member State and carrying out in another Member State only technical testing or research activities)
   2012/C 399/07
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Falun

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Daimler AG (C-318/11), Widex A/S(C-319/11)

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Re:

   (C-318/11)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Förvaltningsrätten i Falun — Interpretation of Articles 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and of Articles 1 and 2 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) and Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23) — Car manufacturer established in Member State A, having made certain acquisitions in Member State B, in order to carry out there, through its subsidiary established in that Member State, endurance tests on its vehicles in winter conditions, with a view to their sale in Member State A — Subsidiary wholly owned by the car manufacturer having the principal objective of providing to the parent company sites, tracks on which to carry out the tests and services connected with the tests inside Member State B, necessary to the commercial activities carried out by the parent company in the Member State where it is established — Whether the car manufacturer has a fixed establishment in Member State B
   (C-319/11)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Förvaltningsrätten i Falun — Interpretation of Articles 170 and 171 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and Articles 1 and 2 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Company manufacturing hearing aids established in Member State A which has acquired goods and services in Member State B for the needs of its audiology research department situated in that Member State and whose staff is employed by that company — Whether or not the hearing aid manufacturer has a fixed establishment in Member State B

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A taxable person for VAT established in one Member State and carrying out in another Member State only technical testing or research work, not including taxable transactions, cannot be regarded as having in that other Member State a ‘fixed establishment from which business transactions are effected’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006, and Article 3(a) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State;

               2.

               The interpretation given to the concept of ‘fixed establishment from which business transactions are effected’ is not called into question, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, by the fact that the taxable person has, in the Member State where it has applied for refund, a wholly-owned subsidiary, the purpose of which is almost exclusively to supply the person with various services in respect of its technical testing activity.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-342/00: Action brought on 15 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 316/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
having regard to the action for annulment brought on                     The Commission’s total failure to take into consideration the
29 February 2000, and Articles 83(1) and 81 of the EC Treaty             observations which CNPA and DLR were prompted to submit
                                                                         as a result of the publication of the contested act and the
                                                                         guidelines gives them a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
—     declare that the admissibility of the appeal, which depends        CNPA and DLR have a legitimate interest, in the light of the
      on the legal classification of the contested act, is insepar-      collective interests represented by them, in ensuring that the
      able from the substance of the case;                               Commission, the guarantor of Community competition policy,
                                                                         at least fulfil its task of instruction in that field, by answering
                                                                         such objections as may be put to it. To conceive of the
—     declare that the contested act infringes Articles 83(1) and        consultation procedure in any other way would deprive
      81 of the EC Treaty;                                               Article 83(1) of the Treaty of any actual effect.
—     declare it void.                                                   (1) OJ L 336, p. 21.
In the alternative, having regard to Article 230 of the EC
Treaty,
                                                                         Action brought on 15 September 2000 by the Com-
—     declare that the appellants have provided proof that they          mission of the European Communities against the
      have a direct and individual interest in challenging the                                    Kingdom of Spain
      legality of Regulation (EEC) No 2790/1999 of
      22 December 1999 (1);                                                                         (Case C-342/00)
—     declare it void for the reasons set out below;                                                (2000/C 316/34)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 Sep-
order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   tember 2000 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
                                                                         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Infringement by the Court of First Instance of its own
      Rules of Procedure, and also of Articles 83(1), 81(1) and          —     Declare that, by failing to have adopted the laws, regu-
      230 of the EC Treaty: the Court gave judgment before the                 lations and administrative provisions needed in order to
      time-limit of three months for interveners to submit                     comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of 3 March
      observations had even expired.                                           1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assess-
                                                                               ment of the effects of certain public and private projects
                                                                               on the environment or, in any event, by failing to
—     Infringement of Articles 83(1) and 81 of the Treaty: it is               have informed the Commission about any such laws,
      plain that an act of the Commission, even if it is called a              regulations or administrative provisions, the Kingdom of
      regulation, may not escape review by the judicature if it                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      infringes the very terms of the Treaty. Contrary to what                 directive;
      the contested order finds, the question whether the action
      was admissible could not be settled without consideration          —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      of the substance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 230(4) of the Treaty: the mere
      fact that the Commission calls the contested act a                 The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
      regulation does not make it a regulation within the                Case C-335/00 (3); the period for transposition expired on
      meaning of Article 83(1) of the Treaty if, as the appellants       14 March 1999.
      maintain, it infringes precisely those provisions of
      Article 81, and that is so whether the contested act is            (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
      individual or general in scope.                                    (2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (OJ L 175,
                                                                             5.7.1985, p. 40).
                                                                         (3) See p. 16 of this Official Journal.
Moreover, the appellants have provided proof that they have a
direct and individual interest in the annulment they request.


title: Case F-75/06: Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Lofaro v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/48

         Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Lofaro v Commission
   (Case F-75/06)
   (2006/C 212/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Lofaro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 28 September 2005 to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and the report at the expiry of the probationary period on which that decision was based;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE) of 31 March 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation for the loss suffered, damages assessed on equitable grounds at EUR 85 473 for material loss and EUR 50 000 for non-material loss, such amounts to be increased or reduced as appropriate during the proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, formerly a member of the Commission's temporary staff, was taken on from 16 September 2004 until 15 September 2009 under a contract which provided for a probationary period of 6 months, in accordance with Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. Following an initial negative evaluation report, an extension of the probationary period by six months and a second negative evaluation report, the defendant terminated that contract.
   In his application, the applicant submits that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment, in so far as, first, it used incorrect facts as a basis or misinterpreted the facts and, second, it blamed the applicant for problems for which he could not be held responsible.
   In addition, according to the applicant, the defendant infringed the general principles which safeguard the right to dignity and to a defence and made superfluous critical comments.
   The applicant finally argues that, by not completing the evaluation report at the latest one month before the expiry of the probationary period, the defendant infringed Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.


title: Case C-128/05: Action brought on 18 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/21

         Action brought on 18 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-128/05)
   (2005/C 182/41)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dr. Dimitris Triantafyllou, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by allowing taxable persons not established in Austria and who transport passengers there not to submit tax return forms and not to pay the net amount of VAT, when their annual turnover in Austria is below EUR 22 000, in assuming, in this case, that the amount of VAT owed is equal to the amount of deductible VAT and that the application of the simplified regulation is contingent on Austrian VAT not being in invoices or in other documents serving as invoices, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6, 9(2)(b), 17, 18 and 22(3) to (5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; (1)

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   For international passenger transport by taxable persons established in another Member State or in a third country, simplified rules have been in force in Austria since 1 April 2002. Such taxable persons are permitted not to submit tax return forms and not to pay the net amount of VAT, when their annual turnover in Austria is below 22 000 euros. The rules assume that, in this case, the amount of VAT owed is equal to the amount of deductible VAT. At the same time taxable persons who take advantage of these simplified rules do not have to state the Austrian VAT in their invoices or in other documents serving as invoices.
   These rules are neither in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (‘Sixth VAT Directive’) nor with Council Decision 2001/242/EC of 19 May 2001.
   The Commission submits that the abovementioned directive does in fact provide for the possibility of a flat-rate scheme for small enterprises, but the definition of ‘small enterprise’ used under Austrian rules — turnover in Austria of less than EUR 22 000 — does not correspond to the Community law concept of ‘small enterprise’, which must be given a uniform interpretation. It remains furthermore unproven that the Austrian flat-rate scheme does not lead to a tax reduction which exceeds the simplification measure which Article 24(1) of the abovementioned directive aims to permit. The release from the other invoicing and tax return obligations and the duty to keep records further constitutes the formal aspect of the oversimplification.
   The Commission claims that the Austrian rules at issue cannot be accepted on the basis of the abovementioned Council decision either. This decision does admittedly authorise the Republic of Austria to tax, from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2005, the international transportation of passengers carried out by taxable persons not established in Austria by means of motor vehicles not registered in Austria in derogation from Article 11 of the abovementioned directive. This exception is, however, expressly based on the condition that the distance covered in Austria be taxed on the basis of an average taxable amount per person and per kilometre.

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-68/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Post Bank Iran v Council

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/27

         Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Post Bank Iran v Council
   (Case T-68/14)
   2014/C 129/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul paragraph 1 of the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18);

               —

               Annul paragraph 1 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

               —

               Declare Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1), as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP (2) of 23 January 2012, and Articles 23 (2) (d) and 46(2) of Regulation 267/2012 (3) of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review both paragraph 1 of the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP and paragraph 1 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 and their conformity with the general principles of European law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 and Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012, violates EU law and should be declared inapplicable to the Applicant, thus invalidating Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 which are based on them, for the following reasons:

                           —

                           Article 46(2) of Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 violates Article 215 TFEU, since it enables the Council to decide sanctions against the Applicant without abiding by the procedure provided in Article 215 TFEU.

                           —

                           Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 and Article 23 (2)(d) of Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 violate the persons’ fundamental rights as protected in Articles 2, 21 and 23 of the TEU and the EU Charter of fundamental rights insofar as they provide the Council with the arbitrary powers to decide which person and entity the Council wants to sanction when the Council determines that such person or entity provides support to the Government of Iran.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and in fact when it adopted Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 as far as the Applicant is concerned, for the following reasons:

                           —

                           The specific reason for the listing of Post Bank Iran is unsubstantiated. The Applicant clearly denied it provided financial support to the Government of Iran. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided nuclear support to Iran. Hence the requirements of Article 20.1(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1(11) of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met.

                           —

                           By sanctioning Post Bank Iran on the sole grounds it is a Government-owned company, the Council discriminated against the Applicant as compared with other publicly-owned companies of Iran which are not sanctioned. While doing so, the Council violated the principles of equality, non-discrimination and sound administration.

                           —

                           The Council did not adequately state the reasons of its decision to maintain the Applicant in the list of sanctioned entities. While referring to the ‘impact of the measures in the context of the Union’s policy objectives’, it failed to specify the type of impact it refers to and how the measures would address such impact.

                           —

                           By maintaining the Applicant in the List of sanctioned companies, the Council has misused its powers. The Council refused in practice to comply with the Judgment of the General Court in case T-13/11. The Council undermined the institutional construct of the European Union and the Applicant’s right to obtain justice and see it applied. The Council also evaded its own responsibilities and obligations under Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, as they were clearly specified to the Council by the Court in its above-mentioned Judgment.

                           —

                           The Council violated the principle of legitimate expectations by not complying with a judgment of the Court, in which the Council was a party against the 4 Applicant and which the Council lost, by failing to even comply with the rationale and motivations of the Judgment, by making a factual mistake regarding the Applicant’s business and its presumed role towards the Government of Iran, by failing to carry out the slightest investigation into the Applicant’s actual role and business in Iran whereas this was indicated by the Court as an important aspect of the EU’s sanctions’ regime against Iran, and by maintaining the sanctions beyond 20 January 2014, date at which the EU agreed on revenue generating activities for Iran, since Iran is no longer considered to engage in nuclear proliferation activities.

                           —

                           The Council violated the principle of proportionality. The sanctions target nuclear proliferation activities of Iran. The Council has not established and cannot establish that the Applicant has directly or indirectly provided support for nuclear proliferation in Iran. It even no longer alleges that it is contributing specifically to nuclear proliferation in Iran. Given the lack of impact of the sanctions on nuclear proliferation, the objective of the sanctions does not justify the annulment of the benefits accruing to the Applicant from the Court’s judgment and the stress they impose on the overall system of judicial protection in the EU, let alone the violation of the Applicant’s right of property and of commerce. This conclusion is reinforced by the adoption on 20 January 2014 of the Council’s regulation lifting certain sanctions based on the acknowledgment that Iran is actually not engaging in nuclear proliferation activities.

      (1)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

      (2)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)


               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/1

         (2007/C 283/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 269, 10.11.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

      OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

      OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

      OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-200/00: Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Glenryck UK Limited, Maple Leaf Foods UK Limited, Martin Mathew & Co Limited and North Country Quality Foods Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 302/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
—     the principle of fair application of the law; and                   The fourth applicant claims that the Court should:
—     the obligation to provide proper reasoning.                         —     annul the Commission Decision dated 15 May 2000
                                                                                under reference REM 43/199 and award the costs of the
                                                                                application.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302, p. 1.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation          Pleas in law and main arguments
    (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code,
    OJ L 253, p. 1.
                                                                          The legislative and factual background is similar to that in Case
                                                                          T-199/00.
                                                                          The applicants seek the annulment of the contested decisions
                                                                          on the following grounds:
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Glenryck UK Limited,                    —     The investigation in Turkey was both ultra vires and
Maple Leaf Foods UK Limited, Martin Mathew & Co                                 flawed.
Limited and North Country Quality Foods Limited against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     The applicants rights of defence had been violated as an
                                                                                UCLAF report on allegations of fraud had been established
                         (Case T-200/00)                                        without contacting the applicants to check the facts or
                                                                                seek clarification.
                         (2000/C 302/68)
                                                                          —     The Commission misunderstood the significance of the
                                                                                fact that the Turkish customs authorities had not with-
                    (Language of the case: English)                             drawn the relevant ATR movement certificates.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 —     Contrary to the contested decision, the mixing of qualify-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      ing and non-qualifying material does not invalidate the
European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Glenryck UK                             final product for preferential-duty purposes.
Limited, Maple Leaf Foods UK Limited, Martin Mathew & Co
Limited and North Country Quality Foods Limited, represented
by Eamon McNicholas, Malachy Cornwell-Kelly and Sally                     —     Contrary to the contested decision, there is a special
Saltissi of Dechert, London.                                                    situation or exceptional circumstance for the purposes of
                                                                                Article 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
The first applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The third and the fourth applicants submit two additional
—     annul the Commission Decision dated 2 May 2000 under                grounds for annulment with regard to importations taking
      reference REM 14/199 and award the costs of the                     place in 1996:
      application.
                                                                          —     As a result of the implementation of the Customs Union,
The second applicant claims that the Court should:                              agricultural goods freely circulating in Turkey fall within
                                                                                the preferential-duty scheme.
—     annul the Commission decision dated 8 May 2000 under
      reference REM 15/199 and award the costs of the
                                                                          —     By refusing to inform the applicants about the findings
      application.
                                                                                of the investigation carried out in Turkey the Commission
                                                                                left the applicants to incur further financial risks, which
The third applicant claims that the Court should:                               taints the contested decision.
—     annul the Commission Decision dated 2 May 2000 under
      reference REM 16/199 and award the costs of the
      application.


title: Case T-448/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Trends (Arbitration clause — Fourth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration — Contracts involving projects in the field of telematics applications of common interest — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements for part of the declared expenses — Reimbursement of the sums paid)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Trends
   (Case T-448/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Fourth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration - Contracts involving projects in the field of telematics applications of common interest - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements for part of the declared expenses - Reimbursement of the sums paid)
   (2007/C 247/44)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent, and M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou, S. Chatzigiannis, and then by K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and V. Vlassi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC seeking an order that Trends reimburse the Commission in the sum of EUR 48 046 plus contractual interest or, in the alternative, plus default interest.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The interlocutory application is dismissed;

               2.

               Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) is ordered to pay to the Commission the sum of Eur 48 046 plus default interest at the rate of 5,5 % per annum from 1 January 1999 until payment in full of the sum owed;

               3.

               Trends is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003 (formerly Case C-248/03).


title: Case T-106/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/18

         Action brought on 17 March 2016 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)
   (Case T-106/16)
   (2016/C 175/21)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘ZIRO’ — EU trade mark application No 12 264 958

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 71/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-107/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-107/06)
   (2006/C 86/43)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal and Dimitris Triantafillou, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/123/EC (1) of 22 December 2003 amending Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 January 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 7 of 13.01.2004, p. 41.


title: Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — SLM and Ori Martin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single, complex and continuous infringement — Limitation period — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Imputation of liablitiy for the infringment to the parent company — Proportionnality — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — SLM and Ori Martin v Commission
   (Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single, complex and continuous infringement - Limitation period - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Imputation of liablitiy for the infringment to the parent company - Proportionnality - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 302/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) (Ceprano, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti and F. Covone, lawyers) (Case T-389/10); and Ori Martin SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Ziotti, lawyer) (Case T-419/10)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Gencarelli, V. Bottka and P. Rossi, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P. Rossi and G. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Article 1(16) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, in so far as it finds that Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA (SLM) participated in a series of agreements and commercial practices in the prestressing steel sector in the internal market and within the European Economic Area (EEA) from 10 February 1997 to 14 April 1997;

               3.

               Annuls Article 2(16) of Decision C(2010) 4387 final, as amended by Decision C(2010) 6676 final and by Decision C(2011) 2269 final;

               4.

               Reduces the fine imposed on SLM from EUR 19,8 million to EUR 19 million, of which the amount of EUR 13,3 million is imposed on a joint and several basis with Ori Martin SA; on account of the legal maximum of 10 % of total turnover provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the final amount of the fine to be imposed on SLM is set at EUR 1,956 million;

               5.

               Dismisses the actions at to the remainder;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of SLM and one third of the costs of Ori Martin;

               7.

               Orders SLM to bear one third of its own costs;

               8.

               Orders Ori Martin to bear two thirds of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-113/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-113/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/75)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case F-123/15: Action brought on 21 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/79

         Action brought on 21 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-123/15)
   (2015/C 398/94)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/293/14 not to award the applicant a sufficient number of points for admission to the assessment centre.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 11 June 2015 by which the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/293/14 refused to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the assessment centre;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-75/15: Action brought on 12 August 2016 — OT v Commission

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/30

         Action brought on 12 August 2016 — OT v Commission
   (Case F-75/15)
   (2016/C 383/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision of 26 September 2014 refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant alleges to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 26 September 2014 refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction;

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 9 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 2 836 107 (that is, two million eight hundred and thirty-six thousand one hundred and seven euro) covering the material damages suffered by the Applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 (that is one hundred thousand euro) covering the non-material damages suffered by the applicant; and

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-404/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Open-cast coal mines — ‘Alto Sil’ site — Special protection area — Site of Community importance — Brown bear (Ursus arctos) — Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus))

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-404/09) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Open-cast coal mines - ‘Alto Sil’ site - Special protection area - Site of Community importance - Brown bear (Ursus arctos) - Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus))
      (2012/C 25/05)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and by F. Castillo de la Torre and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC (OJ L 175, p. 40) and Article 6(2)(3) and (4) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, p. 7) — Opencast mining — ‘Alto Sil’ special conservation area (ES0000210) — Habitat of Cantabrian capercaillie.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by authorising the ‘Nueva Julia’ and ‘Ladrones’ open-cast mines but failing to subject that authorisation to an assessment in order to identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the existing open-cast mining projects, save, in relation to the ‘Ladrones’ mine, as regards the brown bear (Ursus arctos), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997;

                  2.

                  Declares that, from 2000, the date of designation of the ‘Alto Sil’ area as a special protection area under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997,

                              —

                              by authorising the ‘Nueva Julia’ and ‘Ladrones’ open-cast mining operations, without making the grant of the authorisations relating thereto subject to the carrying out of an appropriate assessment of the possible impacts of those projects, and, in any event, without complying with the conditions in which a project might be realised despite the risk posed by that project for the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), which constitutes one of the natural assets which motivated the classification of the ‘Alto Sil’ site as a special protection area, namely the absence of alternative solutions, the existence of imperative reasons of major public interest and communication to the European Commission of the necessary compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network, and

                              —

                              by failing to adopt the necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of habitats including the habitats of species, and to prevent significant disturbance of the capercaillie, the presence of which on the ‘Alto Sil’ site was the reason for the designation of that area as a special protection area, caused by the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Salguero-Prégame-Valdesegadas’, ‘Fonfría’, ‘Ampliación de Feixolín’ and ‘Nueva Julia’ mines,

                        the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the ‘Alto Sil’ special protection area under Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in conjunction with Article 7 thereof;

                  3.

                  Declares that, from December 2004, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of habitats, including the habitats of species, and the disturbances caused to species by the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Fonfría’ and ‘Ampliación de Feixolín’ operations, the Kingdom of Spain has failed, in relation to the ‘Alto Sil’ site of Community importance, to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43;

                  4.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  5.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay, in addition to its own costs, two thirds of the Commission’s costs. The Commission is ordered to pay one third of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: NOTICE OF VACANCY

text:
12 . 4 . 96       EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                         No C 106/ 15
                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                NOTICE OF VACANCY
                                                     (96 /C 106/ 10)
            The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of
            the European Communities No C 106 A of 12 April 1996 the following notice of vacancy :
            CJ 20/96 'Director of Translation'
            Closing date for application : 15 May 1996.


title: Case C-25/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 January 2014 — Union des syndicats de l'immobilier (UNIS) v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 January 2014 — Union des syndicats de l'immobilier (UNIS) v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others
   (Case C-25/14)
   2014/C 85/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Union des syndicats de l'immobilier (UNIS)

      Defendants: Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others

      Question referred

   Is compliance with the obligation of transparency flowing from Article 56 TFEU a mandatory prior condition for the extension, by a Member State, to all undertakings within a sector, of a collective agreement under which a single operator, chosen by the social partners, is entrusted with the management of a compulsory supplementary social security scheme for employees?


title: Case C-206/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc against Matthew Reed

text:
C 212/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.7.2001
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                   (b) the third party has no defence to infringement by
                                                                                virtue of Article 6(1) of the Council Directive of the
                                                                                21st December 1988 to approximate the laws of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      the Member States relating to trade marks
                                                                                (89/104/EEC) (1);
The Commission submits that Netherlands has not correctly
implemented the following provisions of the directive into                     does the third party have a defence to infringement on
Netherlands law:                                                               the ground that the use complained of does not indicate
                                                                               trade origin (i.e. a connection in the course of trade
—     Article 8(2) (use of anaesthesia in the case of serious                  between the goods and the trade mark proprietor)?
      injury which may cause severe pain): A draft amendment
      to the ‘Dierproevenbesluit’ (animal experiments order) for
                                                                          2.   If so, is the fact that the use in question would be
      the implementation of Article 8(2)(b), last sentence,
                                                                               perceived as a badge of support, loyalty or affiliation to
      of the directive, was, according to the Netherlands
                                                                               the trade mark proprietor a sufficient connection?
      Government, recently sent for the opinion of the Raad
      van State.
—     Article 11 (release of animals): The Commission submits
      that Article 10(a), second paragraph of the Wet op de               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
      Dierproeven (law on animal experiments) has a general
      scope and does not concern specifically the release of
      animals.
—     Article 18(1) (identification marking of dogs, cats and
      primates): There is no provision in Netherlands law to
      the effect that before they are weaned they must be provided
      with an individual identification mark in the least painful
      manner possible.
—     Article 22(1) (mutual recognition of results of animal
      experiments): The Commission submits that this pro-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfin-
      vision must be implemented in national law by means of              anzhof by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the
      a statutory provision with binding force.                           case of Theodor Schilling and Angelika Fleck-Schilling v
                                                                                Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd
(1) OJ 1987, L 117, p. 31.
                                                                                (Case C-209/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/24)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   (Federal Finance Court) of 21 February 2001, which was
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order                    received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2001, for a
of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal                       preliminary ruling in the case of Theodor Schilling and
           Football Club plc against Matthew Reed                         Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd on the
                                                                          following questions:
                          (Case C-206/01)
                                                                          1.   Is it contrary to the first paragraph of Article 14 of the
                                                                               Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Euro-
                         (2001/C 212/23)                                       pean Communities of 8 April 1965 (BGBl II 1965, 1482,
                                                                               1488) if German nationals who work in Luxembourg as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         officials of the European Community and live there may
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                          not, in the context of assessment to German income tax,
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 4 May 2001,                   deduct expenditure in respect of a household help
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for                   employed in Luxembourg under Paragraph 10(1)(8) of
a preliminary ruling in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc                  the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax) because
against Matthew Reed, on the following questions:                              the contributions to the statutory pension insurance
                                                                               scheme for the household help were not paid to the
1.    Where a trade mark is validly registered and
                                                                               German pension insurance scheme?
      (a)   a third party uses in the course of trade a sign
            identical with that trade mark in relation to goods           2.   If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 48(4)
            which are identical with those for whom the trade-                 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that an EC
            mark is registered; and                                            official may not rely on Article 48 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case F-10/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 19 March 2013 — SF (*1) v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Daily subsistence allowance — Transfer — Grant of the daily subsistence allowance — Official owning accommodation located at the new place of employment — Proof of expenses incurred due to provisional installation at the new place of employment)

text:
                  25.5.2013

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 147/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 19 March 2013 —  SF (*1) v Commission
         (Case F-10/12) (1)

         (Civil Service - Remuneration - Daily subsistence allowance - Transfer - Grant of the daily subsistence allowance - Official owning accommodation located at the new place of employment - Proof of expenses incurred due to provisional installation at the new place of employment)
         (2013/C 147/61)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: SF (*1) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

            Re:

         Civil Service — Application to annul the Commission decision refusing to grant the applicant daily subsistence allowances.

            Operative part of the judgment

         The Tribunal:

                     1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                     2.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by  SF (*1);

                     3.

                     Orders  SF (*1) to bear half of his own costs.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 29.


title: Case F-39/07: Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Campos Valls v Council

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/28

         Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Campos Valls v Council
   (Case F-39/07)
   (2007/C 129/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Manuel Campos Valls (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) to reject the applicant's candidature for the post of head of the Spanish Language Unit of DG A, Directorate 3 — Translation and Document Production — Language Service and the decision appointing another candidate to that post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant relies on a single plea based on infringement of vacancy notice No 60/06, manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the candidate selected to fill the position does not have, unlike the applicant, the technical knowledge of translation required by the vacancy notice. In particular, the argument relied on by the Council that that knowledge had to be assessed in the light of the staff management functions which the head of unit has to carry out fails to have regard to the vacancy notice.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-219/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Tax on capital gains)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-219/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Tax on capital gains)
   (2005/C 31/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-219/03 the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Diaz-Llanos La Roche and L. Escobar Guerrero) v Kingdom of Spain (Agents: L. Fraguas Gadea) –action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 May 2003 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, with regard to the tax on capital gains made since 1 January 1997 on transfers of shares purchased prior to 31 December 1994, by maintaining in force a tax regime which is less favourable to shares quoted on markets other than Spanish regulated markets than to shares quoted on the latter markets, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-407/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 March 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of the obligation to comply with a judgment of the Court — Financial penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 31 March 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-407/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Breach of the obligation to comply with a judgment of the Court - Financial penalties - Imposition of a lump sum payment)
   2011/C 152/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and N. Dafniou, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of 18 July 2007 in Case C-26/07 — Failure to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Request that a penalty payment be set

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-26/07 Commission v Greece by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion that was issued by the Commission of the European Communities on 23 September 2008 pursuant to Article 228 EC, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 3 million;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-701/15: Action brought on 25 November 2015 — Stock Polska v OHIM- Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/72

         Action brought on 25 November 2015 — Stock Polska v OHIM- Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA)
   (Case T-701/15)
   (2016/C 038/97)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Stock Polska Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (Lübeck, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Party applying for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘LUBELSKA’ — Application No 11 657 459

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2015 in Case R 1788/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-466/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Société Roquette Frères SA v Direction générale des douanes et des droits indirects and Recette principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction générale des douanes et des droits indirects

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/47

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Société Roquette Frères SA v Direction générale des douanes et des droits indirects and Recette principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction générale des douanes et des droits indirects
   (Case C-466/06)
   (2006/C 326/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de grande instance, Nanterre
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Roquette Frères SA

      Defendants: Direction générale des douanes et des droits indirects and Recette principale de Gennevilliers de la Direction générale des douanes et des droits indirects
   Questions referred

               1.

               Primarily
               Are Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1785/81 (1), Article 27(3) of Regulation No 2038/1999 (2), Article 1 of Regulation No 2073/2000 (3), Article [1](2) of Regulation No 1745/2002 (4) and Article 1 of Regulation No 1739/2003 (5) valid in so far as they fix the maximum basic quantities for isoglucose production for Metropolitan France without taking into consideration the isoglucose produced in that Member State between 1 November 1978 and 30 April 1979 as an intermediate product used in the manufacture of other products intended for sale?

               2.

               In the alternative, in the event of a negative reply to the previous question:
               Are Commission Regulations Nos 1443/82 (6) and 314/2002 (7) invalid under Article 33 of Regulation No 2038 1999 and Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector respectively and with regard to the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, in so far as they do not provide, for the purposes of calculating the production levy, for excluding from the financing needs the quantities of sugar (8) contained in the processed products exported without [export] refund?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1999 L 252, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of 29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 38).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September 2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2002 L 263, p. 31).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September 2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries under preferential imports (OJ 2003 L 249, p. 38).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 1982 L 158, p. 17).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40).

      (8)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p.1).


title: Case C-587/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 in Case T-429/11 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/12

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 in Case T-429/11 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission
   (Case C-587/13 P)
   2014/C 15/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               declare admissible the action for annulment in Case T-429/11 and refer the case back to the General Court for adjudication on the merits; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from the proceedings relating to admissibility before both courts.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court infringed European Union law in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions contesting decisions declaring an aid scheme to be unlawful and incompatible. In particular,

                           —

                           the General Court erred in its interpretation of the case-law relating to the concept of the actual beneficiary and distorted the facts in applying that concept to the operations carried out by the appellant after 21 December 2007;

                           —

                           the General Court also erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the actual beneficiary for the purposes of the case-law, in relation to the operations prior to 21 December 2007.

               2.

               The General Court made an error of law in interpreting the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court erred in law in holding that the decisions concerning State aid schemes such as the contested decision require implementing measures within the meaning of the new provision of the Treaty.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in making a ruling which infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The order under appeal adopts a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the appellant from gaining access, in normal conditions and without having to break the law, to the preliminary ruling procedure in order to challenge the contested decision.


title: Case T-184/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Avon Products OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Avon Products OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE)
   (Case T-184/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 19/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: C. Heitmann-Lichtenstein and U. Stelzenmüller, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by S. Laitinen and P. Bullock, and subsequently by G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R 1471/2006 2), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Avon Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Joined Cases C-128/10 and C-129/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE (C-128/10), Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia (C-129/10) v Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilías (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Articles 1 and 4 — Prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services — Review of conditions relating to the safety of ships — Maintenance of order in ports — Public service obligations — Absence of precise criteria known in advance)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE (C-128/10), Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia (C-129/10) v Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilías
   (Joined Cases C-128/10 and C-129/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Maritime cabotage - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services - Review of conditions relating to the safety of ships - Maintenance of order in ports - Public service obligations - Absence of precise criteria known in advance)
   2011/C 139/18
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Navtiliaki Etairia Thasou AE (C-128/10), Amalthia I Navtiki Etairia (C-129/10)

      Defendant: Ipourgos Emborikis Navtilías

      Intervener: Koinopraxia Epibatikon Ochimatagogon Ploion Kavalas — Thasou (C-128/10)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Arts 1, 2 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — National legislation requiring prior administrative authorisation for cabotage services — System aimed at verifying whether schedules can be implemented under conditions of safety for the ship and maintenance of order in the port — No precise criteria known in advance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which establishes a system of prior authorisation for maritime cabotage services providing for the adoption of administrative decisions imposing compliance with certain timeslots for reasons relating, first, to the safety of ships and order in ports and, second, to public service obligations, provided that such a system is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance, particularly in cases where more than one shipowner is interested in entering the same port at the same time. With respect to the administrative decisions imposing public service obligations, it is also necessary that a genuine public service need arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services under conditions of free competition can be demonstrated. It is for the national court to determine whether in the main proceedings those conditions are met.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-133/06: Action brought on  8 March 2006  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/12

         Action brought on 8 March 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-133/06)
   (2006/C 108/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens, A. Caiola and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, under Article 230 EC, Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (1);

               —

               alternatively, annul Directive 2005/85/EC in its entirety;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament raises four pleas in law in support of its application: infringement of the EC treaty, the Council's lack of competence to enact the provisions in question, breach of an essential procedural requirement and, more precisely, failure to state reasons for the contested provisions and breach of the duty to cooperate in good faith.
   By reserving to itself the adoption and amendment by the consultation procedure of the minimum common list of third countries regarded as safe countries of origin and of the list of European safe third countries, the Council infringed the first indent of Article 67(5) EC providing for passage to the co-decision procedure after the legislation defining the basic principles and common rules in respect of the policy on asylum and refugees has been adopted. The Council has no power to enact, in secondary legislation, a legal basis for the adoption of successive acts of secondary legislation, in so far as they do not constitute implementing measures.
   In addition, the Council has not stated reasons sufficient in law for that reservation as to legislation contained in Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Directive 2005/85/EC, which constitutes a breach of an essential procedural requirement. Finally, the Council failed to comply with the duty, under Article 10 EC, to cooperate in good faith with the European Parliament, since the contested provisions disregard the role of co-legislator conferred by the EC Treaty on the European Parliament and despite the legislative resolution of 27 September 2005, adopted in the course of the consultation procedure concerning the directive in question, by which the Parliament drew that point to the Council's attention.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.


title: Case T-53/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Curodont — Earlier national word mark Eurodont — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)
   (Case T-53/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Curodont - Earlier national word mark Eurodont - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 145/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: credentis AG (Windisch, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Karlslunde K/S (Karlslunde, Denmark) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2014 (case R 353/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Karlslunde K/S and credentis AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders credentis AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur against the Council of the European Union (Case T-107/98)

text:
C 299/38              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
In support of his application he argues, inter alia:                Communities on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur, resident in
                                                                    Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Ð that the author of the decision lacked jurisdiction or            Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
    that the decision lacks any constitutional or legal basis       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
    in that the defendant is, on the basis of a simple              the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
    declaration which does not constitute an amendment              Cessange.
    or provision having the force of primary law,
    purporting to enact a piece of delegated legislation            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    which it is not constitutionally authorised to adopt.
    Furthermore, the applicant argues that there is a
                                                                    Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
    discrepancy between the scope of the declaration,
                                                                         the request for refund of that part of the pension
    which presumably constitutes the basis of the disputed
                                                                         rights transferred to the Community pensions regime
    decision, and the decision itself, in that the decision is
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
    general in nature,
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
Ð breach of Articles 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Staff                      Staff Regulations,
    Regulations in so far as the disputed decision institutes
    security screening by the national authorities and
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    withdraws the appointing authority's autonomous
    power to adopt a decision in the event that the
    national authorities' opinion is negative and places            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    officials and employees affected by such screening in a
    position of dependence. Similarly, both Article 23 of           The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    the Staff Regulations and the Protocol on Privileges            raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    and Immunities of the European Communities have,
    according to the applicant, been ignored in so far as
    they provide for a legal system of official immunity in         (1) See page 36 of this Official Journal.
    relation to the accomplishment of tasks entrusted to
    officials,
Ð breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in so far
    as the disputed decision provides for the constitution
    of a security file in addition to the single file referred      Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
    to in Article 26,                                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-110/98)
Ð breach of Article 24 of the Treaty establishing a single                                    (98/C 299/69)
    Council and a single Commission of the European
    Communities of 8 April 1965, and of the Council
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
    decision of 23 June 1981 establishing a concertation
    procedure, breach of essential procedural requirements
    and hierarchy of legal sources in so far as the disputed        An action against the Commission of the European
    decision, which is a simple decision, implicitly                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    purports to amend several provisions of the Staff               Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
    Regulations which are statutory in nature. In                   by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
    particular, there was no prior proposal by the                  Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
    Commission neither were the institutions consulted.             Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
                                                                    10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
(1) OJ L 140, 12.5.1998, p. 12.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998
                                                                         relating to financial interventions from Germany to
                                                                         the coal industry in 1997, which purports to authorise
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur against                   Germany to grant aid to its coal industry, and
             the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-107/98)                              Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
                        (98/C 299/68)                                    including those of the applicant.
               (Language of the case: French)                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant is an independently owned coal-mining
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          company incorporated in England and Wales. Its major


title: Case C-176/14: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/21

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans v Vlaamse Gemeenschap
   (Case C-176/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-79/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Julia Schnorbus v Land Hessen (Equal treatment for men and women — Rules on access to practical legal training in Land Hesse — Priority for applicants who have completed military or civilian service)

text:
C 118/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            21.4.2001
measures necessary to comply with its obligations under                    equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5 of Council Directive                    employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection                   conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the United Kingdorn has failed              ris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty           Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,                1.     National provisions governing the date of admission to the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in                            practical legal training which is a necessary prerequisite of
which it:                                                                         access to employment in the civil service fall within the scope of
                                                                                Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                  women as regards access to employment, vocational training
      obligations laid down in Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5                 and promotion, and working conditions.
      of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
      concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by      2.     National provisions such as those at issue in the main
      nitrates from agricultural sources, the United Kingdom of Great             proceedings do not constitute discrimination directly based on
      Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           sex.
      under that directive;
                                                                           3.     National provisions such as those at issue in the main
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                     proceedings constitute indirect discrimination based on sex.
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           4.     Directive 76/207 does not preclude national provisions such as
                                                                                those at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as such
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                        provisions are justified by objective reasons and prompted solely
                                                                                by a desire to counterbalance to some extent the delay resulting
                                                                                from the completion of compulsory military or civilian service.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 7 December 2000
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-79/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Julia Schnor-                                            of 7 December 2000
                       bus v Land Hessen (1)
                                                                           in Case C-213/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Equal treatment for men and women — Rules on access to                    the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto, Portugal): José
practical legal training in Land Hesse — Priority for                      Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões,
 applicants who have completed military or civilian service)                                intervener: Ministério Público (1)
                           (2001/C 118/03)                                 (Release of goods for free circulation — Expiry of the period
                                                                           within which a customs-approved use must be assigned —
                                                                           Procedure for putting goods up for sale or levying an ad
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                        valorem duty)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-79/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsge-
richt Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Main), Germany for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                      in the European Court Reports)
pending before that court between Julia Schnorbus and Land
Hessen - on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC             In Case C-213/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Fiscal