title: Case C-124/01: Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 161/7
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     the export licences acquired. If the Court had made its
                                                                                doubts on this point known, the plaintiff would have
                                                                                been able to give a breakdown of the figures at the
—     partially annul the contested judgment; and                               hearing; the Court was therefore not entitled to reject the
                                                                                claim in its entirety on that ground.
—     adjudicate accordingly on the claim at first instance (1)
                                                                          (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The Court of First Instance wrongly proceeded on the
      basis that the plaintiff passed the cost of the export
      licences on to its customers and therefore suffered no
      loss. The plaintiff made no declaration on the point
      because the question of any possible unjustified loss did
      not in any event fall within the scope of its evidentiary
      burden.                                                             Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      If the plaintiff did pass on the cost of obtaining the export
      licences to its customers, it did so because the market
                                                                                (Case C-124/01)
      would bear those prices. Without the requirement to
      produce export licences from Costa Rica, the plaintiff
      would have obtained the same sale price but made a                                             (2001/C 161/13)
      greater profit. The loss arose with the payment for the
      illegal export licences, which thereby concluded legal
      relations between the party causing the loss and the party          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      suffering it. Whether and to what extent the party                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March
      suffering the loss succeeds, on account of its skill and the        2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      market situation, in opening up new sources of income               represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
      for itself with which to compensate for its expenditure
      on the export licences, is an entirely different question to
      be determined in accordance with new (and appropriate)              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      causal links. That is how this legal question was deter-
      mined by the higher German courts. The relevant con-
      sideration is the recognition that the party causing the            —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      loss may not unfairly escape responsibility.                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the
                                                                                Council of 26 October 1994(1) on the protection of
—     The subsidiary reasoning of the Court of First Instance                   purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
      concerning the balancing of advantages between the                        relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
      various operators also fails to support the contested                     properties on a timeshare basis, the Italian Republic has
      judgment. The principle of balancing advantages applies                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      only if the advantage which arises (raising of quotas,
      reduction in customs duties) stems from the same
      legal infringement as the loss (expenditure incurred in             —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      obtaining export licences). Raising of quotas and customs
      duties, by contrast, do not constitute a legal infringement.
      How exactly this compensation for loss is to be quantified
      in the plaintiffs assessment of its loss is a matter which          Pleas in law and main arguments
      the plaintiff is unable to discover from the contested
      judgment.
—     The contested judgment suffers from an insufficient                 a)     Failure to comply with Article                          9 of
      statement of reasons, because it is not clear whether the                  Directive 94/47/EC
      Court is unprepared in principle to allow certification of
      the loss by sworn auditors as evidence.
                                                                          The Italian authorities indicated that they were to amend
                                                                          Article 11 of Decree No 427/98 in order fully to transpose
—     The Court of First Instance wrongly doubts the probative            Article 9 of the directive. However, no definite timetable has
      value of the customs payments, tested by auditors, which            yet been communicated concerning that amendment, from
      the plaintiff made for actual imports corresponding to              which it must be presumed that the infringement is continuing.
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.6.2001
b)     Failure to comply with Article 10 of                            3.     Is the Chamber obliged, pursuant to the case-law of the
       Directive 94/47/EC                                                    Court of Justice, to refrain from applying the provision
                                                                             concerning the prescriptive period?
Article 12 of Decree No 427/98 does not lay down any
penalties or specify any other type of consequence resulting           (1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 3.
from a vendor’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide
any person requesting the same with a document setting out
at least brief and accurate information on the particulars
mentioned in points (a) to (g), (i) and (1) of the annex to the
directive. In particular, the decree does not provide for any
fine or similar sanction in the event of omission of the
particulars mentioned in points (a), (b), (c), (i) and (1) of the
annex to the directive.
                                                                       Action brought on 20 March 2001 by the Commission of
Furthermore, the information in question must be given in the            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
document mentioned not only to ensure effective protection
of purchasers, but also to avoid distortions of competition
between vendors at the level of the internal market.                                             (Case C-128/01)
For those reasons, the Commission submits that Article 10 of                                     (2001/C 161/15)
the directive has not been fully and properly transposed by the
Italian Republic.                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 March
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ L 280, 1994, p. 83.                                             represented by Luca Visaggio, acting as Agent.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 (1) amending
                                                                             Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht                    stuffs, or by failing to communicate such provisions, the
Leipzig, by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the                   Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
   case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                    that directive and the Treaty;
                                                                       —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-125/01)
                         (2001/C 161/14)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 According to Article 249 EC, directives are binding upon the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig             Member States as to the result to be achieved. Article 10 EC
(Leipzig Social Court) of 21 February 2001, received at the            provides that the Member States are to take all appropriate
Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in           measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment
the case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on          of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
the following questions:                                               action taken by the institutions of the Community, and to
                                                                       facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks.
1.    Is a prescriptive period for bringing claims for payment
      by the guarantee institution of outstanding wage claims
      compatible with Article 9 of Council Directive                   The Commission submits that, because the Italian Republic
      80/98/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approximation            failed to adopt, or to communicate, the provisions necessary
      of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection      to conform to the directive mentioned, it has failed to fulfil its
      of employees in the event of the insolvency of their             obligations under the directive and the Treaty.
      employer?
2.    Does the Court of Justice share the Chamber’s view that          (1) OJ L 235, 1996, p. 39.
      such a prescriptive period does not constitute a legal
      provision which is more favourable to employees within
      the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 80/987/EEC?


title: Case C-69/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg)) — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration (Directive 2005/85/EC — Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Decision taken on (the) application for asylum within the meaning of Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 — Application by a third country national for refugee status — Failure to provide reasons justifying the grant of international protection — Application rejected under an accelerated procedure — No remedy against the decision to deal with the application under an accelerated procedure — Right to effective judicial review)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif (Luxembourg)) — Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
   (Case C-69/10) (1)

   (Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - ‘Decision taken on (the) application for asylum’ within the meaning of Article 39 of Directive 2005/85 - Application by a third country national for refugee status - Failure to provide reasons justifying the grant of international protection - Application rejected under an accelerated procedure - No remedy against the decision to deal with the application under an accelerated procedure - Right to effective judicial review)
   2011/C 298/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brahim Samba Diouf

      Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) — Application by a third country national, without a legal right of residence, for refugee status — Rejection of that application in a national accelerated procedure in the absence of grounds justifying the grant of international protection — Conformity with Community law of national legislation excluding any appeal against the decision to treat the application under the accelerated procedure — Right to effective judicial review

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction, Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and the principle of effective judicial protection, do not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which no separate action may be brought against the decision of the competent national authority to deal with an application for asylum under an accelerated procedure, provided that the reasons which led that authority to examine the merits of the application under such a procedure can in fact be subject to judicial review in the action which may be brought against the final decision rejecting the application — a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-281/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2011 by Diego Canga Fano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2011 in Case F-104/09, Canga Fano v Council

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/20

         Appeal brought on 3 June 2011 by Diego Canga Fano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2011 in Case F-104/09, Canga Fano v Council
   (Case T-281/11 P)
   2011/C 238/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Diego Canga Fano (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered on 24 March 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-104/09;

               —

               grant the applications for annulment and damages which the applicant brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, subject to the proviso that the applicant would be satisfied with the annulment of the decision adopted and would accept one euro as symbolic compensation for the damage caused to him;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, divided into three parts and alleging an error of law.

               —

               In the first part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the applicable provisions in a manner contrary to that laid down by the Court of Justice and the General Court in their case-law concerning the appointing authority's discretion (paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment under appeal).

               —

               In the second part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal drew conclusions unjustified in law in its review of the manifest error of assessment (paragraphs 48, 51, 52, 58, 78, and 79 of the judgment under appeal) and contradicted its own criteria, with which it claims to replace the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court.

               —

               In the third part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal's statement of reasons is vitiated by inaccuracies of fact, linked to distortion of, or failure to take account of, evidence put before it (paragraphs 80, 81, 85, 88 and 90 of the judgment under appeal).


title: Case C-428/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III — by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case brought by Roberto Lorenzoni against 1) Comune di Carrara, and 2) Bipielle Riscossoni S.p.a.

text:
24.1.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 21/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                          (the ‘tax on marble’) on goods transported out of one
Tributaria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III —                      municipality and intended for other regions of the same
by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case brought                     State, or does not that particular charge instead involve
by Roberto Lorenzoni against 1) Comune di Carrara, and                         less favourable treatment of goods intended for those
                   2) Bipielle Riscossoni S.p.a.                               regions in comparison with goods exported in other
                                                                               Member States, and does not this pecuniary charge
                                                                               constitute an impediment to free movement of goods
                         (Case C-428/03)
                                                                               throughout the European market?
                          (2004/C 21/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-
taria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III — (Provincial
Tax Court of Massa Carrara, Third Chamber) of 21 July 2003,              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2003, for a                  Tributaria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III —
preliminary ruling in the case brought by Roberto Lorenzoni              by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case brought
against 1) Comune di Carrara, and 2) Bipielle Riscossoni S.p.a.              by Duegi Trasporti S.r.l. against Comune di Carrara
on the following questions:
                                                                                (Case C-429/03)
(A) Does a tax, levied by a municipal authority in one
      Member State on goods exported to another Member
      State on account of their leaving a municipality in the                                      (2004/C 21/19)
      first Member State, constitute a charge having equivalent
      effect to customs duties on exports, even though that
      fiscal charge also applies to goods leaving that munici-
      pality for another part of that Member State?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(B) Are the legislative provisions by virtue of which that tax           European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-
      is levied compatible with Community law? In particular,            taria Provinciale di Massa e Carrara — Sezione III — (Provincial
      is the provision laid down in the Law of the Italian State         Tax Court of Massa Carrara, Third Chamber) of 21 July 2003,
      No 749 of 15 July 1911 (as subsequently amended and                received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2003, for a
      supplemented) by virtue of which the Comune di Carrara             preliminary ruling in the case brought by Duegi Trasporti S.r.l.
      imposes and levies a tax on marble (and derivatives)               against Comune di Carrara on the following questions:
      excavated in its territory and transported out of it (the ‘tax
      on marble’) compatible with, or contrary to, Article 23            (A) Does a tax, levied by a municipal authority in one
      (ex Article 9) of the Treaty establishing the European                   Member State on goods exported to another Member
      Communities, which provides that ‘[t]he Community                        State on account of their leaving a municipality in the
      shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover                    first Member State, constitute a charge having equivalent
      all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition               effect to customs duties on exports, even though that
      between Member States of customs duties on imports                       fiscal charge also applies to goods leaving that munici-
      and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect’,                pality for another part of that Member State?
      and Article 25 (ex Article 12), which provides that
      ‘[c]ustoms duties on imports and exports and charges               (B) Are the legislative provisions by virtue of which that tax
      having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between                     is levied compatible with Community law? In particular,
      Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to                      is the provision laid down in the Law of the Italian State
      customs duties of a fiscal nature’?                                      No 749 of 15 July 1911 (as subsequently amended and
                                                                               supplemented) by virtue of which the Comune di Carrara
(C) Is this tax on marble compatible with Articles 81 EC to                    imposes and levies a tax on marble (and derivatives)
      89 EC (ex Articles 85 to 90 and 92 to 94 of the EC                       excavated in its territory and transported out of it (the ‘tax
      Treaty), which lay down a series of rules intended to                    on marble’) compatible with, or contrary to, Article 23
      create a system which will ensure that competition on                    (ex Article 9) of the Treaty establishing the European
      the common market is not distorted and which will                        Communities, which provides that ‘[t]he Community
      remove subsisting impediments in order to attain that                    shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover
      objective?                                                               all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition
                                                                               between Member States of customs duties on imports
(D) If the answer to the previous question is ‘No’ — having                    and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect’,
      regard to the fact that, in respect of the municipality in               and Article 25 (ex Article 12), which provides that
      which the tax on marble (and derivatives) is levied the                  ‘[c]ustoms duties on imports and exports and charges
      Treaty provides no special measures in favour of the                     having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between
      Italian Republic — is it compatible with Community law                   Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to
      for a legislative provision to impose a pecuniary charge                 customs duties of a fiscal nature’?


C 302/24              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-445/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-338/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/61)
By order of 12 July 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-445/98 (Reference for a preliminary           By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg):           of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Bayram Ali Lotoz v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart — Amt für              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-338/99:
öffentliche Ordnung.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Belgium.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Case C-338/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — European Commission implementing decision — Notification to the addressee — Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-338/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 239/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case T-320/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Margherita v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/35

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Margherita v Commission
   (Case T-320/08)
   (2008/C 272/68)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Margherita Soc. coop. rl (Cariati, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-640/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/54

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament
   (Case T-640/15)
   (2016/C 048/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tina Kristan (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8656 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


22.2.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 44/45
        Removal from the register of Case T-201/94 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-262/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 44/82)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/83)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 By order of 29 November 2002 the Court of First Instance of
T-201/94: Erwin Kustermann v Council of the European                      the European Communities (Sole Judge: J. Azizi) ordered the
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                         removal from the register of Case T-262/01: Jürgen Sachau v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 218 of 6.8.1994.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case C-23/16: Action brought on 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/25

         Action brought on 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-23/16)
   (2016/C 098/32)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and to connect it up with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1);

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The national electronic register must be created and connected up with the national electronic registers of the other Member States by 31 December 2012 at the latest.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.


title: Case T-295/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Autoneum Germany v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Autoneum Germany v Commission
   (Case T-295/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))
   (2014/C 431/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Autoneum Germany GmbH (Roßdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-429/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — The Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV (Competition policy — Articles 81 EC and 82 EC — Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Written observations submitted by the Commission — National dispute concerning the deductibility from tax of a fine imposed by a Commission decision)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — The Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV
   (Case C-429/07) (1)

   (Competition policy - Articles 81 EC and 82 EC - Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Written observations submitted by the Commission - National dispute concerning the deductibility from tax of a fine imposed by a Commission decision)
   2009/C 180/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

      Defendant: X BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Submission by the Commission of written observations in the course of national proceedings concerning the deductibility for tax purposes of a fine imposed by the Commission

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the Commission of the European Communities to submit on its own initiative written observations to a national court of a Member State in proceedings relating to the deductibility from taxable profits of the amount of a fine or a part thereof imposed by the Commission for infringement of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-425/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Enviro Tech (Europe) Ltd v État belge (Environment and consumer protection — Classification, packaging and labelling of n-propyl bromide as a dangerous substance — Directive 2004/73/EC — Directive 67/548/EEC — Duty to transpose)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium)) — Enviro Tech (Europe) Ltd v État belge
   (Case C-425/08) (1)

   (Environment and consumer protection - Classification, packaging and labelling of n-propyl bromide as a dangerous substance - Directive 2004/73/EC - Directive 67/548/EEC - Duty to transpose)
   2009/C 297/16
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enviro Tech (Europe) Ltd

      Defendant: État belge

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Validity, in the light of Framework Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), in particular Annex V (point A.9) and Annex VI (point 4.2.3) thereto, of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Framework Directive 67/548/EEC (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1) — National provisions unlawful on the ground that they transpose a directive presumed to be contrary to the framework directive — Classification of the substance called n-propyl bromide as a highly flammable and toxic substance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the questions referred has shown no factor capable of affecting the validity of Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the 29th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, in that it classifies n-propyl bromide as a highly flammable substance (R11) and toxic for reproduction in category 2 (R60).

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.10.2008.


title: Case T-242/10: Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Danzeisen v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/47

         Action brought on 27 May 2010 — Danzeisen v Commission
   (Case T-242/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/78
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Werner Danzeisen (Eichstetten, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 271/2010, in so far as it amends Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 to the extent that paragraph 9 of Part A of Annex XI concerning the organic logo of the EU referred to in Article 57 provides in a legally binding way that use of the logo is to be ‘in accordance with the rules accompanying its registration … in the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property’, in particular in so far as those rules (the regulations on the collective mark) provide

                           —

                           in Article 2(4), that nobody, including the applicant, may use the EU organic logo ‘without empowerment from the bodies designed or recognised in accordance with the Community regulations’;

                           —

                           in Article 4, for exclusion of liability, the European Union giving no warranty for the use of the EU organic logo in the European Union, except to the extent of its corporate existence and of its underlying entitlement to the organic farming mark, that is to say a limitation of the European Union’s liability to the legal identity of the European Union and its entitlement to the registration of the mark;

                           —

                           in the second sentence of Article 7(2), that the collective mark regulations on use and management of the EU organic logo and European Union and national legislation can coexist, but ‘that in case of conflict concerning the use of the organic farming mark, the provisions of the present regulations on use and management’ shall be applied and take precedence over the other rules, in particular those contained in Regulation (EU) No 271/2010;

                           —

                           in Article 9(3), that the EU organic logo may not be used in any manner that is derogatory to or critical of the European Union or of the collective mark regulations which accompanied its registration in the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property;

                           —

                           in Article 12(1), that the European Union reserves its right to verify all marketing and promotion materials bearing the organic farming mark and periodically to send out requests for samples;

                           —

                           in Article 15(1), that the interpretation of the provisions of the collective mark regulations is reserved to the European Union, and by extension to its legal representative, the European Commission, and is thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union;

                           —

                           in Article 15(2), that the regulations on the use and management of the EU organic logo are governed by Belgian law;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the necessary costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges the new version of Annex XI of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (1) introduced by Regulation (EU) No 271/2010. (2)

   In support of its action, the applicant claims first that there is an infringement of the third sentence of Article 297(1) TFEU, since Annex XI Part A, paragraph 9 of Regulation No 889/2008 in the version of Regulation No 271/2010 refers to the Commission regulations on the collective mark which accompanied the registration of the European logo for organic products in the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property and those regulations were not published in the Official Journal, although they have the same binding legal effects as the text of the Commission Regulation itself.
   Second, the applicant claims that the automatic cross-reference to the Commission’s regulations on the collective mark gives the Commission the opportunity to alter the actual meaning of Regulation No 271/2010 at will, excluding the Member States, and thereby circumventing and undermining the legitimacy of the legislative measure conferred by the participation of the Member States.
   Third, the applicant complains that the regulations on the collective mark provide that nobody may use the European Union logo for organic products without being empowered to do so by the bodies designed or recognised in accordance with European Union regulations. According to the applicant, that is not in conformity with Article 24(2) and Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (3) because those provisions provide for a right for organic holdings to use the European Union logo for organic products for organic products which comply with the regulation.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the regulations on the collective mark provide for an exclusion of liability for the European Commission by which it also releases itself unlawfully from its legal obligation to avoid harm being caused to the applicant.
   Fifth, the applicant argues that the provisions of the collective mark regulations provide in the case of coexistence of its provisions with the other legislative measures of the European Union and of national laws that in the case of conflict the regulations will always take precedence, meaning that the primacy of European Union law is not observed.
   Sixth, the applicant complains that the regulations on the collective mark preclude him from using the European Union logo for organic products in any manner critical of the European Union. His fundamental right to freedom of expression is thereby infringed, arbitrarily and without justification.
   Seventh, the applicant claims that the regulations on the collective mark provide that the European Commission may request samples from users of the European Union logo for organic products and may verify them, giving the Commission direct rights to intervene with regard to undertakings and departing from the division of competences with regard to the Member States.
   Eighth, the applicant complains about the registration of the European Union logo for organic products by the European Union as a collective mark, because that is inter alia incompatible with Regulation No 834/2007.
   Ninth, the applicant argues that in the regulations on the collective mark the Commission reserves the right to interpret those regulations itself, thereby infringing the monopoly on interpretation of the Court of Justice.
   It is finally arbitrary that the regulations on the collective mark lay down that Belgian law also applies to the applicant.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 271/2010 of 24 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards the organic production logo of the European Union (OJ 2010 L 84, p. 19)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-420/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose — Directive 2001/18/EC)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-420/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose - Directive 2001/18/EC)
   (2004/C 228/30)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-420/03 — Commission of the European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) — application for a declaration that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-320/13: Action brought on 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/8

         Action brought on 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-320/13)
   (2013/C 226/14)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/28/EC at the daily rate of EUR 133 228,80 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2009/28/EC expired on 5 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.


title: Case C-35/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2008 — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley/Cibrian v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2008 — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley/Cibrian v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
   (Case C-35/08)
   (2008/C 92/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley/Cibrian

      Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is it contrary to Article 56 EC for a natural person with unlimited tax liability in Germany to be unable to deduct losses from the letting or leasing of real estate located in another Member State — in contrast to a loss from real estate on national territory — when calculating taxable income in Germany in the year in which the loss arises?

                           (b)

                           Is it relevant whether the natural person made the real estate investment himself or does an infringement arise also where the natural person has become the owner of the real estate located in another Member State by way of inheritance?

               2.

               Is it contrary to Article 56 EC for a natural person with unlimited tax liability in Germany to be able to apply only the normal method of depreciation in calculating income from the letting or leasing of real estate located in another EU Member State, whilst being able to apply the higher decreasing balance method of depreciation in the case of real estate on national territory?

               3.

               If Questions 1 and 2 must be answered in the negative, are the national provisions at issue contrary to the freedom of movement laid down in Article 18 EC?


9.12.2000             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 355/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-139/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-445/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/38)                                                     (2000/C 355/41)
By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber         By order of 1 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-139/99:             the register of Case C-445/99: Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.                   Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-22/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-420/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/39)                                                     (2000/C 355/42)
By order of 19 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-22/00: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-420/99 Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.                                              Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-437/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/40)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-42/00 (1)
By order of 28 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                             (2000/C 355/43)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-437/99: Commission of the European           By order of 3 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Ireland.                                              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-42/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                           Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amt der Tiroler Regierung (Landesvergabeamt) by order of that body of 7 November 1996 in the review proceedings brought by Josef Köllensperger GmbH & Co KG and Atzwanger AG against Gemeindeverband Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz (Case C-103/97)

text:
No C 142/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10 . 5 . 97
Deduction of the VAT liable to be paid in connection with             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
real property acquired by a taxable person in joint
ownership or co-ownership with individuals must be                    The treatment of waste oil is regulated in the Federal
authorized immediately and unconditionally, in proportion             Republic of Germany primarily by the Abfallgesetz ( Law
of course to the part of the property used for business               on Waste Products ) ( until 6 October 1996 ) and the
purposes .                                                            Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz ( Law on Economic
                                                                      Cycles and Waste Products) ( since 7 Oktober 1996 ) and
Excluding that deduction constitutes a breach of the                  by the subordinate legislation enacted pursuant thereto
principle of neutrality of the tax which, where the                   ( the Altolverordnung ( Regulation on Waste Oils ), the Ab
property is resold, would be charged twice on the same                fallbestimmungsverordnung ( Regulation on dealing with
taxable amount, that is to say the price of that part of the          Waste Products ), the Reststoffbestimmungsverordnung
property used for business purposes. Where property is                ( Regulation dealing with Residual Matter ) and the Abfall
resold, the trader or other self-employed person carries out          und Reststoffiiberwachungsverordnung ( Regulation on the
a taxable transfer and is liable to pay to the tax                    Control of Waste Products and Residual Matter)). None
authorities the VAT received from the purchaser of the                of the provisions of that legislation gives priority to the
property, even though that same taxable person, on his                regeneration of waste oils . According to paragraph 6 ( 1 )
purchase of that same property, had paid the VAT charged              of the Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz ( BGB1 . I
him hy the vendor without any possibility of deduction for            1994, p. 2705 ), waste products may be used as materials
the part to be used for business purposes, in short being             or used for energy purposes. Priority is given to whichever
treated as though he were the end-user of the entire                  form of utilization is better adapted to the environment.
property.                                                             Rules may be adopted giving priority either to use for
                                                                      material purposes or to utilization for energy purposes,
In essence, by providing for that derogation from the                 depending on which use constitutes a better solution in
principle that VAT paid on business costs should be                   environmental terms . Although discussion took place at
deductible, the Italian legislature has arbitrarily introduced        the time of the adoption of the Kreislaufwirtschafts- und
an irrebuttable presumption of evasion in relation to all             Abfallgesetz as to whether priority should be given to
purchases by taxable persons jointly with private                     regeneration, such priority was not ultimately provided for
individuals of property intended for undifferentiated use,            in that Law. This is contrary to the wording of Article 3(1 )
without taking into account the actual, even though                   of Directive 75/439/EEC, as amended by Directive 87/101 /
partial, use of that investment property for the business             EEC, and to the choice made by the European legislature,
requirements.                                                         as expressed in the recitals in the preamble to Directive
                                                                      87/ 101 /EEC: regeneration is generally the most rational
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              way of re-using waste oils in view of the energy savings
                                                                      which can be achieved, and priority should therefore be
                                                                      given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration ( see
                                                                      the second recital in the preamble to Directive 87/101 /
                                                                      EEC ). Although the prohibition of the mixing of waste
                                                                      oils laid down by paragraphs 2 ( 1 ) and 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of
Action brought on 10 March 1997 by the Commission of                  the Altolverordnung prevents high-grade waste oils from
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                 being extracted by the regenerating industry, and thus
                             of Germany                               represents a condition of regeneration, it does not
                          ( Case C-102/97)                            establish any priority in favour of regeneration.
                             97/C 142/21 )
                                                                      ( 1 ) Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the
                                                                            disposal of waste oils ( OJ No L 194, 1975, p. 31 ).
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                 ( 2 ) Council   Directive       87/ 101 /EEC of 22  December     1986
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         amending Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils
Communities on 10 March 1997 by the Commission of                           ( OJ No L 42 , 12 . 2 . 1987, p. 43 ).
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
Hausen, Legal Adviser in the Commission, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European
Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amt der
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Tiroler Regierung (Landesvergabeamt) by order of that
                                                                      body of 7 November 1996 in the review proceedings
— declare that, by failing to give priority to the material,          brought by Josef Kollensperger GmbH & Co KG and
     rather than the thermal, processing of waste oils,                           Atzwanger AG against Gemeindeverband
     notwithstanding that such processing is not precluded                                 Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz
     by any economic, technical or organizational                                                   ( Case C-103/97 )
    constraints, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 ( 1 ) of                                        ( 97/C 142/22 )
     Council Directive 75/439/EEC H as amended by
    Directive 87/ 101 /EEC ( 2 ),                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Amt der Tiroler
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                    Landesregierung, Landesvergabeamt ( Office of the
    costs .                                                           Regional Government for the Tyrol — Regional Public
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/ 11
Procurement Office ) of 7 November 1996 , which was                         Community incurs liability even for lawful legislative
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 1997, for a                      acts. That plea was put forward in the initial
preliminary ruling in the review proceedings brought by                     application under the heading 'Sonderopfer'
Josef Kollensperger GmbH & Co KG and Atzwanger AG                           (exceptional burdens ). In any event, the submissions in
against Gemeindeverband Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz                           the reply do not constitute a new plea in law, but at
( association of municipalities for the Schwaz district                     most a new argument. Liability for lawful legislative
hospital ) on the following questions :                                     acts rests on the same legal basis as liability for
                                                                            unlawful ones, namely the second paragraph of
( a ) Is Article 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (') of                   Article 215 of the Treaty. The objective pursued by the
      21 December 1989 to be interpreted as meaning that                    applicants, namely damages for legislative acts of the
      the (Tyrol ) Regional Public Procurement Office,                      Community, is the same . The task of the Court is also
      established by the (Tyrol ) regional law of 6 June 1994               the same, since the rationale for liability for lawful
      on the award of public contracts ( LGB1 No 87/1994 ),                 legislative acts is essentially the same as that for
      is a review body within the meaning of Article 2 ( 8 ) of             unlawful ones, namely that individual parties are not
      the Directive ?                                                       to be singled out to bear exceptional burdens.
( b ) Did the abovementioned law on the award of public                — The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
      contracts adequately secure the transposition into                    by dismissing the pleas in law based on breach of the
      national law of Council Directive         89/665/EEC of               rights of the defence, the principle of non
      21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,                     discrimination, the principle of the protection of
      regulations and administrative provisions relating to                 legitimate expectations, the fundamental freedom to
      the application of review procedures to the award of                  pursue an economic activity, and the prohibition on
      public supply and public works contracts, in regard to                delegation of legislative competence . In particular, the
      the review procedures mentioned in Article 1 thereof?                 Court of First Instance declined, when applying the
                                                                            principle of non-discrimination and in the context of
(') OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .                                 the freedom to pursue an economic activity, to take
                                                                            account of the facts of the case adduced before it, i.e.
                                                                            to recognize the individual effects of the Regulation in
                                                                            the particular case of the applicant. If that approach
                                                                            were correct, examination of basic rights ( including
                                                                            the principle of non-discrimination) in an individual
Appeal brought on 10 March 1997 by Atlanta AG against                       case, as continually requested by the applicant, could
the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the                           never take place in principle . Examination would
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition ) of the Court of                      always be curtailed at the outset as to whether
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          application of the contested rule ( in this case Title IV
T-521/93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG and                           of the Regulation ) to the particular circumstances in
Others and, of the other part, the Council of the European                 which an individual party is placed infringes
 Union and the Commission of the European Communities                       fundamental rights . It would be conceivable in those
                                                                           circumstances that, despite having its fundamental
                        ( Case C-104/97 P                                   rights individually affected by the application of a
                           ( 97/C 142/23 )                                  Community measure, the applicant would have no
                                                                           procedure available for complaint.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December
                                                                       (') OJ No C 40 , 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 15 .
1996 by the Fourth Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-521 /93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG
and Others and, of the other part, the Council of the
European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the French Republic and the
United Kingdom, was brought before the Court of Justice                Reference to the Court for preliminary rulings by the
of the European Communities on 10 March 1997 by                        Pretura Circondariale di Trento by an order of 7 March
Atlanta AG, represented by Erik Undritz and Gerrit                     1997 in the proceedings pending before that court
Schohe, Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in                         between Leonardo Gulli and Ente Poste Italiane
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue                                               ( Case C-105/97)
Philippe II, L-2340 Luxembourg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/24 )
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (').                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Pretura
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Circondariale di Trento (Magistrate's Court for the
                                                                       District of Trento ) of 7 March 1997, which was received
— The Court of First Instance was procedurally incorrect               at the Court Registry on 13 March 1997, for a
      in ruling inadmissible ( pursuant to Article 48 ( 2 ) of its     preliminary ruling in the case Leonardo Gulli and Ente Po
      Rules of Procedure ) the applicants ' plea that the              ste Italiane, on the following question:


title: Case T-340/02: Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau Wĳsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart Maatschappĳ against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/37
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are identical              Pleas in law and main arguments
to those in Case T-338/02.
                                                                           The pleas in law submitted are identical to those in Case
( 1) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the              T-326/02.
     application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344,
     of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( 2) Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism, OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( 3) Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/
     CFSP, OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.
                                                                           Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-
                                                                           Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmon-
                                                                                ization in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-342/02)
Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau                                                   (2003/C 19/72)
Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                           (Case T-340/02)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                            (2003/C 19/71)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 8 November 2002 by Metro-
                                                                           Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation, Santa Monica, California
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (United States of America), represented by Fernand de Visscher,
                                                                           Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, avocats.
                                                                           A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Moser Grupo Media, S.L., Santa Eulalia Del Rio (Baleares -
                                                                           Spain).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2002 by B.V.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bureau Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij, with its registered office in IJsmuiden (Nether-
lands), represented by M.J.J.M. Essers.                                    —     uphold the claim for annulment;
                                                                           —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      5 September 2002;
(1) Primarily, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June                  —     confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of
       2002 (C(2002) 2158 final) concerning State aid provided                   19 February 2001 insofar as it upholds the Opposition
       by the Netherlands for the activities of Netherlands                      number B 47730 for all the contested goods and services
       tugboats operating within seaports and on inland water-                   and rejects application for registration no 409664 in its
       ways of the Community;                                                    entirety on the basis of applicant’s national registrations
                                                                                of the trademark ‘MGM’;
(2) In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the contested
       Commission decision, in which the Commission requires               —     annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 Feb-
       the Netherlands Government inter alia to adopt all                        ruary 2001 insofar as it does not admit as ground for
       measures necessary to recover the aid from recipients,                    rejection applicant’s CTM no 141820 of the trademark
       with the exception of that aid which was granted prior to                 ‘MGM’ or, in subsidiary order, insofar as it does not admit
       12 September 1990;                                                        as ground for rejection the earlier national trade mark
                                                                                registrations in Austria, Greece and the United Kingdom;
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
       ings.                                                               —     condemn the Office to the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-161/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Airhelp Limited v Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Airhelp Limited v Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S
   (Case C-161/16)
   (2016/C 175/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Attunda tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Airhelp Limited

      Defendants: Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 2(g) and 3(2)(a) of the regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger must have a reserved seat (that is to say, the right to his own seat in the aeroplane) or is it sufficient for the passenger to have received confirmation of his booking on the flight (that is to say, the right to be transported in the aeroplane) for compensation to be payable?

               2.

               Must a ticket at a reduced fare for a child who does not have his own seat for the flight, but travels in the company of another passenger, be regarded as available directly or indirectly to the public under Article 3(3) of the regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ L 46, 2004, p. 1).


title: Case F-78/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-78/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 252/116
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Pilar Antelo Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-78/10 Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 65.


title: Case C-73/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T (Request for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/54

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy)) — T
   (Case C-73/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 225/100
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Legal aid — National legislation providing that counsel’s fees may not exceed the average amounts applied in accordance with the professional rates in force where the client has been granted legal aid

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/1

         (2008/C 301/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

      OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

      OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

      OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

      OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

      OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case C-422/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/19

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-422/07)
   (2007/C 283/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the necessary measures for verification of compliance with good laboratory practice in relation to inspections and study checks in the industrial chemical substances sector, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/10/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of the principles of good laboratory practice and the verification of their applications for tests on chemical substances

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission has no evidence that the necessary measures have been adopted in Spain for study checks in accordance with principles of good laboratory practice on the part of the laboratories carrying out tests on industrial chemicals. Neither has any authority been designated in Spain as responsible for the verification of the compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice on the part of those aforementioned laboratories or, in any case, the name of that authority has not been communicated to the Commission.
   Consequently it can be stated that the Kingdom of Spain has proceeded without adopting the necessary measures for the verification of compliance of good laboratory practice relating to inspections and study checks in the industrial chemical products sector as intended in Article 3 of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 50, 20.2.2004, p. 44.


title: Case C-555/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral — Portugal) — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Ltd, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda (Request for a preliminary ruling — ‘Court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU — Tribunal Arbitral necessário — Admissibility — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 13 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Period of validity of a certificate — Maximum period of exclusivity)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/9

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral — Portugal) — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Ltd, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda
   (Case C-555/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - ‘Court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Tribunal Arbitral necessário - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Period of validity of a certificate - Maximum period of exclusivity))
   2014/C 184/12
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck Canada Inc.

      Defendants: Accord Healthcare Ltd, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Arbitral — Interpretation of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Duration of the certificate — Exclusivity period exceeding a maximum of 15 years from the first authorisation to be placed on the market of the medicinal product in question in the European Union

      Operative part of the order

   Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, read in conjunction with recital 9 to the same regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the holder of both a patent and a supplementary protection certificate from relying on the entire period of validity of such a certificate, calculated in accordance with Article 13, in a situation where, pursuant to such a period, it would enjoy a period of exclusivity as regards an active ingredient, of more than 15 years from the first authorisation to be placed on the market, in the European Union, of a medicinal product consisting of that active ingredient, or containing it.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18. 1. 2014.


title: Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities sitting in extended composition in case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical Industries plc and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-286/95 P)

text:
14 . 10 . 95           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/ 19
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative :                Second limb of the plea :
     Is the termination of residence of such a worker by virtue         The Court of First Instance has further infringed
     of an expulsion order made solely on general preventive            Community law by holding, in points 84 and 85 of the
     grounds with a view to deterring other aliens compatible           judgment, that there is no limit of time for raising a new plea
     with Article 14 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned Decision ?             under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of Procedure.
                                                                        Third limb of the plea :
                                                                        In ordering the Commission to produce the text of the
Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of                   decision as authenticated at the time, the Court of First
the European Communities against the judgment delivered                 Instance infringed Community law, in so far as its order is
on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First              based on a mistaken view of the rules governing the
Instance of the European Communities sitting in extended                procedure and the rules of proof and evidence; the Court of
composition in case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical                   First Instance also made a mistake of reasoning in that it
Industries pic and the Commission of the European                       failed to explain in both the order of 25 October 1994 and
                          Communities                                   the judgment why it had concluded that it should order the
                       ( Case C-286/95 P)                               Commission to produce that text.
                           95/C 268/41
                                                                        Second plea for setting aside the judgment: infringement of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995                Community law and lack of reasoning as concerns the
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              purpose of authentication and the consequences of a failure
European Communities sitting in extended composition in                 to authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption.
Case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical Industries pic and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
                                                                        First limb of the plea :
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the                  The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law by
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall and                 holding, in particular in ground 91 of the judgment, that
Berend Jan Drijber, members of its Legal Service, acting as             authentication is a formal requirement which must be
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                observed independently of the existence or not of any
office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner,                       evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of the
Kirchberg.                                                              notified text .
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Second limb of the plea :
1 , set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of
     29 June 1995 in Case T-37/91 , Imperial Chemical                   The Court of First Instance infringed Community law and
     Industries pic v. Commission of the European                       made a mistake of reasoning in holding in grounds 88 , 90
     Communities ;                                                      and 92 that authentication must take place before the act is
                                                                        notified to the addressee, failing which it is void, and that the
                                                                        authentication carried out in this case was defective .
2 , dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's
     decision based upon the lack of authentication;
                                                                        Third limb of the plea :
3 , remit the case to the Court of First Instance pursuant to
     Article 54 of the Statute ( EC ) of the Court of Justice for a     The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law
     decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 and incidentally neglected its obligation to give reasons for
     against the Commission's decision;                                 its judgment by failing to consider whether the alleged defect
                                                                        was such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
4 , order ICI to pay the costs of this appeal .                         decision .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
First plea for the setting aside of the judgment: infringement
of Community law and lack of reasoning as regards the
admissibility of ICI's new plea for annulment, the
organization of the procedure and the rules of proof and
evidence .                                                              Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
First limb of the plea :                                                                       Case C-289/95 )
The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law by                                       ( 95/C 268/42
holding, at point 82 of the judgment, that the statements by
the Commission to which reference is made, can amount in
themselves to a new fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
its Rules of Procedure .                                                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Case C-370/09: Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-370/09) (1)

   2010/C 148/39

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 267, 07.11.2009.


title: Case C-108/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014  — Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Nordenham

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014 — Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Nordenham
   (Case C-108/14)
   2014/C 159/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Nordenham

      Questions referred

               1.

               Which calculation method is to be used to calculate a holding company’s (pro rata) input tax deduction in respect of input supplies connected with the procurement of capital for the purchase of shares in subsidiary companies, if the holding company subsequently (as intended from the outset) provides various taxable services to those companies?

               2.

               Does the provision on the consolidation of several persons into a single taxable person in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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 (1) preclude national legislation under which (firstly) only a legal person, but not a partnership, can be integrated into the undertaking of another taxable person (a so-called ‘Organträger’ (controlling company)) and which (secondly) requires that this legal person ‘is integrated into the undertaking of the Organträger’ in financial, economic and organisational terms (in the sense of a relationship of control and subordination)?

               3.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: can a taxable person rely directly on the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.