title: Case C-108/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Conseil d'État, Judicial Division, by decision of that court of 9 February 2000 in the case of Syndicat des Producteurs Indépendants (Union of independent producers) (SPI) v Ministry for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry

text:
27.5.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/27
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du                   Are advertising services as mentioned in Article 9(2)(e) of
Travail, Mons (Third Chamber), Belgium, by judgment of                    Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) to be understood, as
that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of Caterina                       regards operations for the purpose of promoting the sale of
        Insalaca v Office National des Pensions (ONP)                     goods or services, only as services supplied directly and
                                                                          invoiced by the supplier of services to a taxable advertiser,
                         (Case C-107/00)                                  excluding services of the same nature supplied indirectly to the
                                                                          advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn invoices
                                                                          them to that advertiser?
                         (2000/C 149/49)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du                     (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Travail (Labour Court), Mons (Third Chamber), of 13 March                     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 March                    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145 of 13. 6.1977, p. 1).
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caterina Insalaca
v Office National des Pensions (ONP), on the following
questions:
1. Does the national rule governing the calculation of a
     survivor’s pension and establishing a restriction of the
     ceiling in respect of overlapping of old-age and survivor’s
     pensions where the surviving spouse can claim a survivor’s
     pension payable by another Member State constitute a
     provision on reduction within the meaning of Articles 46a            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Anke- og
     and 46b of Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1)?                Kæremålsudvalg of the Højesteret by order of 21 March
                                                                          2000 in the case of Tele Danmark A/S v HK, acting on
2. If so, must Articles 46a and 46b be interpreted as                                    behalf of Marianne Brandt-Nielsen.
     authorising the national institution which applies the
     provision against overlapping to take account of the
     survivor’s pension granted under the scheme of another                                         (Case C-109/00)
     Member State in order to reduce the ceiling in respect of
     overlapping of old-age and survivor’s pensions provided
     for by national legislation?                                                                  (2000/C 149/51)
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons,       European Communities by order of 21 March 2000 by the
    to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving      Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg (Appeals and Objections Com-
    within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).                           mittee) of the Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 23 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Tele Danmark A/S v HK,
                                                                          acting on behalf of Marianne Brandt-Nielsen, on the following
                                                                          questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French                        Question 1
Conseil d’État, Judicial Division, by decision of that court
of 9 February 2000 in the case of Syndicat des Producteurs
Indépendants (Union of independent producers) (SPI) v                     Does Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) of
    Ministry for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry                   9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
                                                                          equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
                         (Case C-108/00)                                  employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
                                                                          conditions and/or Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC (2)
                                                                          of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to
                         (2000/C 149/50)                                  encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of
                                                                          pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    or are breastfeeding, or other provisions in those directives or
European Communities by a decision of the French Conseil                  elsewhere in Community law preclude a worker from being
d’État, Judicial Division of 9 February 2000, which was                  dismissed on the ground of pregnancy in the case where: (i) the
received at the Court Registry on 23 March 2000, for a                    woman in question was recruited as a temporary worker for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Syndicat des Producteurs                limited period; (ii) when she entered into the contract of
Indépendants (Union of independent producers) (SPI) v Minis-              employment, the worker knew that she was pregnant but did
try for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry on the following           not inform the employer of that fact; and (iii) her pregnancy
question. The French Conseil d’État, Judicial Division, asks the         meant that the worker was unable to work for a significant
Court of Justice to rule on the following question:                       portion of her period of employment?


C 20/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.1.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-11/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-306/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/58)                                                          (2000/C 20/61)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-11/96: Donald George Gage and David John Gage v                  Case T-306/97: M.C. Lewis, M.A. Lewis and D.C. Lewis v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities.                                                   European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-304/97 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-90/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/59)                                                          (2000/C 20/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the First
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-90/98: Assidomän Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesund
Case T-304/97: W.J.C. Hilsdon v Council of the European                 Bruk, Korsnäs AB, Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora
Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-305/97 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-135/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/63)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 22 October 1999, the Court of First Instance of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                the European Communities (single judge) has ordered the
Case T-305/97: Jimmy Hull v Council of the European Union               removal from the register of Case T-135/98: Elaine Spence v
and Commission of the European Communities.                             Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


29.4.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 122/41
— annul the jury’s decision not to put their names on the list                   Removal from the register of Case T-193/98 (1)
    of successful candidates in Internal Competition B/260:
                                                                                (2000/C 122/63)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicants state that the Council had organised an Internal           Case T-193/98: Vassilis Boucouvalas v European Parliament.
Competition B/260 concerning passage from one category to
another on the basis of tests, in order to fill three administrative
assistants’ posts. After the tests had been marked by the jury,           (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
by letters of 27 November 1998, the Directorate for Personnel
and Administration informed the applicants that they had
obtained 109 and 105 marks respectively in the written and
oral tests overall, which would have allowed them to be
included in fifth and sixth places on the list of suitable
candidates. In accordance with the footnote on page 1 and
with Chapter V of the notice of competition, the jury did not
place them on the list of suitable candidates, since the number
of successful candidates cannot exceed the number of posts to                     Removal from the register of Case T-88/99 (1)
be filled, namely three posts.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/64)
During the pre-litigation stage, the applicants claimed that,
according to the information at their disposal, only one of the
three posts to be filled was occupied by one of the successful                               (Language of the case: Greek)
candidates and that, therefore, the competition at issue was
not a competition designed to fill specific posts, but a                  By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Second
non-specialised competition concerning passage from one                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
category to another. They requested, consequently, that a full            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
reserve list be drawn up including all the candidates who had             Case T-88/99: Vassilis Boucouvalas v European Parliament.
passed the tests, including themselves.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
In support of their claims before the Court of First Instance,
the applicants plead:
— infringement of Article 4 of the Staff Regulations, and of
    the general principle prohibiting appointment by order;
— infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations;                        Removal from the register of Case T-207/99 R
— infringement of:                                                                                (2000/C 122/65)
    — Staff Notice No 16/91 concerning the general arrange-
         ments for applying the system of internal competitions,                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
         and in particular point ‘D’ thereof,
                                                                          By order of 14 February 2000 the President of the Court of
    — Staff Notices No 70/97 and 32/98 concerning Internal                First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-207/99 R: Asociación de
         Competition B/260.
                                                                          Fruticultores del Jalón Medio v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.


               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/27

         Removal from the register of Case C-204/05 (1)

   (2006/C 36/58)

      Language of the case: French

   By order of 17 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-204/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.


title: Case F-14/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Reference multiplier rates)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/20

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-14/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Reference multiplier rates)
   2013/C 377/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented initially by: J.-M. Stenier and B. Schäfer, and subsequently by: B. Schäfer and Í. Ni Riágan Düro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion procedure

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 33.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-335/97 (1)                 from the register of Case C-125/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                       (2001/C 118/88)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-335/97: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arbeidshof, Antwerp): Rijksdienst voor Pen-
sioenen v Wim Westenborg.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-105/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/91)
                                                                      By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-222/00 (1)                 from the register of Case C-105/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic .
                       (2001/C 118/89)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-222/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-225/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/92)
                                                                      By order of 8 March 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-125/00 (1)                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-225/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 118/90)                                ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Sociale Verzeke-
                                                                      ringsbank v Yamna Moughit.
By order of 14 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Andrea Von Löwis against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-202/96)

text:
 No C 74/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
 Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Alain Lorang, of the                  addressed to the Commission's staff in Luxembourg and,
 Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          second, for compensation for the damage suffered — the
 Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert ler, v.                       Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K.
 Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                         Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 initially, Joseph Griesmar and, subsequently, Ana Maria                 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 1996,
 Alves Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for             the operative part of which is as follows:
 annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission
 rejecting the applicant's complaint in respect of her pay               I.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
 slip for January 1994, inasmuch as that pay slip shows
 that the administration applied to her the scales of                    2 . There is no need to give a ruling on the application for
 parental contributions in force in Luxembourg in respect                     leave to intervene.
 of the nursery services used by her as an official, and,
 second, for a declaration that the scales fixed by the Social           3 . The applicant is ordered to bear all his own costs and
 Activities Committee are illegal — the Court of First                        to pay the costs of the Commission. The Union
 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,                          Syndicale — Luxembourg is ordered to bear its own
 President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;                       costs .
 H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January
 1997, in which it:                                                      0 ) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
 I. annuls the applicant's pay slip for January 1994
      inasmuch as it shows a deduction in respect of a
      parental contribution to the nursery service provided
      by the Luxembourg Childhood Centre, calculated on
      the basis of the scales applied by the Commission in               Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Andrea Von
      Luxembourg,                                                        Lowis against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 2 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                ( Case T-202/96 )
 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 97/C 74/44 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                      of 13 December 1996                                1996 by Andrea Von Lowis, represented by Gerard van
                                                                        der Wal, member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the
in Case T-128/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Netherlands, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                             at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand Rue .
 (Officials — Refusal by the Commission to distribute
 through its internal messenger services communications to              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the staff from an independent trade union — Legal
interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Claims               — declare the application admissible,
for damages — Subject-matter of the dispute — Summary
              of the pleas in law — Admissibility)                      — declare the decision of 21 October 1996 void,
                             ( 97/C 74/43 )
                                                                        — declare the application of Community tax to the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              applicant, who works for the defendant as a freelance
                                                                             interpreter, unlawful and/or declare Article 8 of the
In Case T-128/96 : Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the                       Agreement with AIIC null and void,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Senningerberg ( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles                     — order repayment of the Community tax withheld by
Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                          the defendant and/or paid by the applicant since
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 15                           1 January 1989 until the date of the judgment to be
avenue du Bois, v. Commission of the European                                given in this case, together with an interest at a rate of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                           8 % or as prescribed by law,
Currall ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision of the Head of the Unit dealing with relations                 — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
with official bodies representing the staff and with the                     applicant.
trade     unions    and        staff  associations   within    the
Commission 's Directorate-General for Personnel               and       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administration ( DG IX ), refusing to arrange the
distribution through the Commission's internal messenger                The applicant explains that since 1973 she has worked as
services of communications from the independent trade                   a freelance interpreter for the Commission. Since 1989 the
union 'Action & Defense — Luxembourg' (A & D — L )                      Commission has deducted Community tax from the
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/21
remuneration of freelance interpreters on the basis of                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
agreements concluded every five years with the AIIC                     should:
('Association Internationale des Interpretes de Confer
ence'). On 8 July 1996 , the applicant requested the                    1 . declare that the European Economic Community is
defendant to reimburse the Community tax paid by her                          liable in damages to the applicants;
since 1989 and to declare that her income would, in the
future, no longer be subject to Community tax. The                      2 . declare that the European Economic Community is
request was rejected by the Commission in a letter of                         liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
8 August 1996 . An appeal against that decision lodged by                     by the applicant as a result of the application of
the applicant on 18 September 1996, was rejected by the                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March
defendant by letter of 21 October 1996 .                                      1984 (*), and the application of Council Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 (2) amending
The applicant submits that the decision contained in the                      Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84, in so far as no provision
letter of 21 October 1996 should be annulled on the                           was made in those Regulations for a representative
following grounds:                                                            reference quantity to be allocated to SLOM assignees
                                                                              who had delivered no milk in the reference year
— The contested decision is based on an incorrect and                         chosen by the Member State concerned pursuant to an
      unlawful     application     and   interpretation   of the              undertaking under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/
      Agreements with AIIC.                                                   77 ( 3 ) of 17 May 1977;
      The defendant acted unlawfully and contrary to the                3 . declare that the applicant has suffered loss of income
                                                                              in an amount constituted by the difference between
      provisions and the objectives of the Agreements
                                                                              the income, including turnover and herd increase,
      ( equality of treatment as regards the fiscal situation of              which in the normal course of affairs he would have
      all freelance interpreters recruited by the Commission)
      by applying the Agreements in such a way that the                       obtained from the quantities of milk which he should
      applicant was obliged to pay Community tax on top                       have delivered if, during the period between 1 April
      of the national income tax paid in her country of                        1984 (the date of entry into force of the Regulation
                                                                              ( EEC) No 857/84 ) and 31 March 1994 (the date of
      residence, namely Switzerland, during the years 1989
      to 1993 and can obtain reimbursement of Community                       expiry of the 1993/1994 period of levy), he had had
      tax since 1994 only under the strict conditions laid                    available to him the reference quantity of milk to
                                                                              which he was entitled and, on the other hand, the
      down in Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement for the period
       1994 to 1998 .                                                         income which he actually received during the
                                                                              abovementioned period;
— There is no legal basis for the imposition of                         4.    declare that interest shall accrue on the amounts of
       Community tax on the applicant.                                        income owing to the applicant with effect from the
                                                                               date of delivery of the Court's judgment, at the rate of
       The provisions in the Agreements with AIIC under                        8% per annum, or at such rate as the Court may
       which the income of freelance interpreters is made                      deem fit, until the date of full and final settlement;
       subject to Community tax are null and void because
       there is no legal basis which enables the defendant or           5 . order the defendants to pay the costs.
       any of the other parties to the Agreements to deduct,
       on the basis of a private agreement, Community tax
       from the remuneration of the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The present case concerns the partial transfer of a SLOM
                                                                         holding during the currency of a SLOM agreement.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that, with effect from the entry
                                                                         into force of the additional levy system until the 1994/
 Application brought on 12 December 1996 by A. van
 Bennekom v. Council and Commission of the European                      1995 levy ^ period, the quota to be allocated to him on
                             Communities                                 the basis of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2055/93 (4 )
                                                                         was -wrongly withheld. The European Community is
                          ( Case T-206/96)                               responsible for the resulting damage on the basis of the
                             ( 97/C 74/45 )                              second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty on
                                                                         account of an infringement of the principle of the
                                                                         protection of legitimate expectations and for exceeding its
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         powers .
 An application was brought before the Court of First                    (')  OJ  No   L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                     (2)  OJ  No   L 84, 29 . 3 . 1989 , p. 2 .
 1996 against the Council and Commission of the                          (3)  OJ  No   L 131 , 26 . 5 . 1977, p . 1 .
 European Communities by A. van Bennekom, residing at                    (4 ) OJ  No   L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
 Maasbommel (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M. van
 Beek, of the Tilburg bar.


title: Case C-24/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive — Article 28c(A)(a) and (d) — Transfer of goods within the European Union — Right to an exemption — Failure to comply with an obligation to provide a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination — No specific evidence of tax evasion — Refusal to grant the exemption — Whether permissible)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen
   (Case C-24/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Article 28c(A)(a) and (d) - Transfer of goods within the European Union - Right to an exemption - Failure to comply with an obligation to provide a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination - No specific evidence of tax evasion - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))
   (2016/C 475/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josef Plöckl

      Defendant: Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(8) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, in the version resulting from Article 28h of that Sixth Directive, and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) and Article 28c(A)(d) of that directive must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of the Member State of origin from refusing to exempt an intra-Community transfer from VAT on the ground that the taxable person has not provided a VAT identification number issued by the Member State of destination, where there is no specific evidence of tax evasion, the goods have been moved to another Member State and the other conditions of exemption from tax are also met.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-170/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 April 2012 — Peter Pinckney v KDG mediatech AG

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 April 2012 — Peter Pinckney v KDG mediatech AG
   (Case C-170/12)
   2012/C 174/29
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Pinckney

      Defendant: KDG mediatech AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of copyright committed by means of content placed online on a website,

                           —

                           the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action to establish liability before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible, in order to obtain compensation solely in respect of the damage suffered on the territory of the Member State before which the action is brought,
                           or

                           —

                           does that content also have to be, or to have been, directed at the public located in the territory of that Member State, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?

               2.

               Is the answer to Question 1 the same if the alleged infringement of copyright results, not from the placing of dematerialised content online, but, as in the present case, from the online sale of a material carrier medium which reproduces that content?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1


title: Case T-691/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/86

         Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-691/15)
   (2016/C 048/94)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 782

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2756/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 782 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

               —

               order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-844/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/51

         Action brought on 22 December 2014 — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)
   (Case T-844/14)
   (2015/C 065/69)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Mark 1’ — Application No 12 052 461

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 648/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-272/02: Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
14.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 219/9
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of                     The Commission concludes that the object of the legislation in
the European Communities against the Council of the                     question is the completion of the internal market and that it
                        European Union                                  does not constitute a set of measures harmonising tax pro-
                                                                        visions. The correct legal base is thus Article 95 EC and not
                                                                        Article 93.
                         (Case C-272/02)
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 128, 15.5.2002, p. 1.
                         (2002/C 219/15)                                (2 ) of 27 January 1992 (OJ L 24, 1.2.1992, p. 1).
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Lyal, acting as agent,              Action brought on 24 July 2002 by European Parliament
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           against Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-273/02)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 219/16)
1)    declare that Council Regulation (EC) No 792/2002 ( 1) of
      7 May 2002 amending temporarily Regulation (EEC)
      No 218/92 (2) on administrative cooperation in the field
      of indirect taxation (VAT) as regards additional measures
      regarding electronic commerce is void;                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 24 July 2002 by the European Parliament, represented
2)    maintain the effects of the regulation until the entry into
                                                                        by Ch. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents, with an
      force of a regulation adopted on the correct legal basis;
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg.
3)    order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1.     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 792/2002 of 7 May
                                                                               2002 amending temporarily Regulation (EEC) No 218/
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                92 on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect
                                                                               taxation (VAT) as regards additional measures regarding
                                                                               electronic commerce ( 1);
The Commission submits that Council Regulation (EC)
No 792/2002 has been adopted on an incorrect legal basis, in            2.     maintain the effects of the annulled regulation until the
                                                                               European Parliament and the Council adopt, on the
disregard of the prerogatives of the European Parliament.
                                                                               proper legal basis, a new regulation;
                                                                        3.     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In the view of the Commission the expression ‘fiscal provisions’
as used in Article 95(2) EC is to be understood as including
rules on taxable persons, taxable events, basis of taxation, rates
and exemptions, along with the detailed rules on assessment
and enforcement. That logic does not, the Commission                    Pleas in law and main arguments
submits, extend to mutual assistance in tax matters. Measures
of cooperation, verification and information whose purpose is
to facilitate the elimination of frontiers without affecting the        Breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement
substance of Member State’s own tax rules do not impinge on             of the EC Treaty: the contested regulation should have been
the tax jurisdiction of the Member States. Such measures                based on Article 95 EC. The language of Article 93 EC
therefore do not fall within the justification advanced for the         ‘harmonisation of legislation concerning ... taxes’ indicates that
exclusion of ‘fiscal provisions’ from the Article 95(1) EC              that provision refers to substantive tax law. Articles 93
derogation, for there is no interference with the right and the         and 95(2) EC must, as lex specialis, be interpreted restrictively.
ability of each Member State to organise its tax system as it           Administrative cooperation measures have no effect on sub-
wishes.                                                                 stantive tax law, which is a matter which falls within the


title: Case C-341/03: Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/13
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of Austria                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-340/03)                                                            (Case C-341/03)
                         (2003/C 226/23)                                                           (2003/C 226/24)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-                2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by J.-C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana, members of              sented by H. Michard, of its Legal Service.
the legal service of the Commission of the European
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          a)   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.   find that, by failing fully and correctly to implement the                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     following provisions of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of                   Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguard-
     12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and                    ing the supplementary pension rights of employed and
     in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in                  self-employed persons moving within the Community (1),
     agriculture (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its         and in any event by failing to inform the Commission
     obligations under the Treaty:                                             thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
                                                                               tions under that directive;
     a)   the definition contained in Article 2(a) of the
          Directive, in the Bundesland Steiermark (exceptions             b)   order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
          for small sewage treatment plants),
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
     b)    Article 6(b) concerning the information to be regu-
           larly provided to users under Annex II A, in Kärnten,          1.   Under the third paragraph of Article 249 (3) EC, directives
                                                                               are binding, on the Member States as to the result to be
     c)   Article 9 in conjunction with Annexes II A, II B and                 achieved, but leave to the national authorities the choice of
          II C in Vorarlberg and in conjunction with Annex II C                form and methods.
          in Kärnten and in Steiermark, and
                                                                          2.   In this case, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 98/49/EC of
     d)    the requirement to keep a record in accordance with                 29 June 1998 provides that Member States are to bring
           Article 10 in Kärnten (paragraph 1(a) as regards the                into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
           exemption of small installations, for which the                     sions necessary to comply with the directive not later than
           Directive does not provide), in Steiermark                          36 months following the date of its entry into force. The
           (paragraph 1(b) and (c) as regards the composition                  directive was brought into force on the day of its publica-
           and properties of the sludge and the type of treat-                 tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities
           ment) and Vorarlberg (paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) as                (25 July 1998) and should therefore have been transposed
           regards quantities of sludge, the composition and                   into national law by 27 January 2001. Under Article 10(2)
           properties of the sludge and the type of treatment),                of the directive Member States were to inform the
                                                                               Commission of the measures of transposition adopted by
2.   order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the                     25 January 2002.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46.
The Austrian Republic was to implement Directive 86/278/EEC
by the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 January
1995.
                                                                          Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of
Although that time-limit has passed, certain provisions of that                Spain against the Council of the European Union
directive have not been fully and correctly implemented in the
Bundesländer of Kärnten, Steiermark and Vorarlberg.                                                 (Case C-342/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/25)
(1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-91/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments — Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB
   (Case C-91/12) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(b) and (c) - Hospital and medical care and closely related activities - Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions - Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments - Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes)
   2013/C 156/18
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: PFC Clinic AB

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Interpretation of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions for medical treatment and care services — Deduction of input tax — Provision of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery services — Whether account to be taken of the purpose of the operation or treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning:

               —

               supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fall within the concepts of ‘medical care’ and ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services are intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health;

               —

               the subjective understanding that the person who undergoes plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment has of it are not in themselves decisive in order to determine whether that intervention has a therapeutic purpose;

               —

               the fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings are supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services is determined by such a professional may influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of ‘medical care’ or ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 respectively;

               —

               in order to determine whether supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 132(1)(b) or (c) of Directive 2006/112 all the requirements laid down in subparagraphs 1(b) or (c) thereof must be taken into account as well as the other relevant provisions in Title IX, Chapters 1 and 2, of that directive such as, as far as concerns Article 132(1)(b), Articles 131, 133 and 134 thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-447/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Directive 2003/59/EC — Obligation to obtain an initial qualification — Article 4 — Acquired rights — Holders of driving licences issued before the dates laid down in Article 4 — Exemption from the obligation to obtain an initial qualification — National legislation setting an additional requirement for periodic training of 35 hours duration in order to benefit from that exemption)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/25

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje
   (Case C-447/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2003/59/EC - Obligation to obtain an initial qualification - Article 4 - Acquired rights - Holders of driving licences issued before the dates laid down in Article 4 - Exemption from the obligation to obtain an initial qualification - National legislation setting an additional requirement for periodic training of 35 hours duration in order to benefit from that exemption))
   (2016/C 335/33)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Ostravě

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ivo Muladi

      Defendant: Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, before the driving activity in question may be carried out, periodic training of 35 hours duration has to be completed by persons who are exempted, under Article 4, from the requirement that drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers obtain an initial qualification.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case T-355/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2010 — De Fays v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Staff case — Officials — Leave — Sick leave — Unauthorised absence established following a medical examination — Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Loss of the benefit of remuneration)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2010 — De Fays v Commission
   (Case T-355/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Cross-appeal - Staff case - Officials - Leave - Sick leave - Unauthorised absence established following a medical examination - Deduction from annual leave entitlement - Loss of the benefit of remuneration)
   2010/C 51/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal and the cross appeal;

               2.

               Orders Chantal De Fays to pay the costs of the appeal;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-810/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014  — Portugal v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/40

         Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-810/14)
   (2015/C 065/55)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Arsénio de Oliveira and S. Nunes de Almeida, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare invalid the notice of assessment submitted by the General Secretariat of the European Commission by letter 2014D/14507 of 6 October 2014.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging appropriation of the powers of the European Union jurisdictional area by the Commission, thereby constituting a lack of competence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, as the act is based on an artificial division of the effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-292/1.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of res judicata, as the act was carried out in breach of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty, the stability of legal relations and legitimate expectations, recognised by EU law.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the prohibition against double penalties, which precludes obtaining, through a new individual legal act, what could not be obtained previously by means of annulment judgments.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States, constituting a lack of competence, in that the Commission tried to restrict the right of Member States to determine a reasonable period for a provision to come into effect.


title: Case C-594/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-594/11)
   2012/C 32/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christoph Becker

      Defendant: Société Air France SA

      Question referred

   Is a passenger entitled to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if the departure time of a flight has been delayed for a period of time falling within the limits defined in Article 6(1) of the regulation, but the flight arrives at the final destination at least three hours after the scheduled time of arrival?

      (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 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-664/11: Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Limitation of services covered by the Community trade mark application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/18

         Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
   (Case T-664/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Limitation of services covered by the Community trade mark application - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 32/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Royal Mediterranea, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2011 (Case R 1976/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Royal Mediterranea, SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Disallowance of expenditure — 1992 and 1993)

text:
22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 20/5
Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
European Communities of 8 April 1965 does not preclude a Member
State, which grants tax relief to households with a single income and
to those with two incomes, the second of which is less than the                                     (Sixth Chamber)
index-linked sum of BEF 270 000, from refusing that benefit to
households in which one spouse is an official or other servant of the
European Communities where his salary exceeds that amount.                                        of 21 October 1999
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 in Case C-333/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Arbeitsgericht Gelsenkirchen): Susanne Lewen v
                                                                                Lothar Denda (1)
                                                                           (Equal pay for male and female workers — Entitlement to a
                                                                             Christmas bonus — Parental leave and maternity leave)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2000/C 20/09)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 21 October 1999                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Disallowance of                                              in the European Court Reports)
                expenditure — 1992 and 1993)
                                                                           In Case C-333/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                          (2000/C 20/08)                                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                           Gelsenkirchen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Susanne Lewen
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and Lothar Denda — on the interpretation of Article 119 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
                                                                           replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), of Article 11(2)(b) of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
                                                                           safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers
In Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                      who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth
E. Röder and B. Kloke) v Commission of the European Com-                   individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
munities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) — application for the partial            Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1989 L 348, p. 1) and of Clause
annulment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 No-                       2(6) of the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June
vember 1996, amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance                  1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave con-
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of               cluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4)
the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the                   — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and
and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996                    R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
L 323, p. 26), inasmuch as it refused to charge to the EAGGF               eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
the sum of DEM 19 591 000 — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it held that:
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as President
of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                  1. A Christmas bonus of the kind at issue in the main proceedings
J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman, Principal Adminis-                  constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October                  Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
1999, in which it:                                                             by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), even if it is paid voluntarily by
                                                                               the employer and even if it is paid mainly or exclusively as an
1. Dismisses the action.                                                       incentive for future work or loyalty to the undertaking or both.
                                                                               However, it does not fall within the concept of payment within
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                    the meaning of Article 11(2)(b) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC
                                                                               of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                                      encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of
                                                                               pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or
                                                                               are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning
                                                                               of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).


title: Case T-199/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — DRV v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich) (Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich — Earlier national figurative mark Raiffeisen — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — DRV v OHIM — Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H. Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich)
   (Case T-199/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Austria Leasing Gesellschaft m.b.H Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Österreich - Earlier national figurative mark Raiffeisen - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/81
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutscher Raiffeisenverband e.V. (DRV) (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: I. Rinke, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Austria Leasing GmbH (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: B. Joachim, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought for the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 253/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutscher Raiffensenverband e.V. (DRV) and Austria Leasing GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutscher Raiffeisenverband e.V. (DRV) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-148/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Comunidad autónoma de Madrid and Mintra v Commission (Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure — Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 — European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 95) — Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 — Letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) — Action for annulment — Act against which proceedings can be brought — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Comunidad autónoma de Madrid and Mintra v Commission
   (Case T-148/05) (1)

   (Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure - Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 - European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 95) - Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 - Letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) - Action for annulment - Act against which proceedings can be brought - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 281/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Comunidad autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, infraestructuras del transporte (Mintra) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Fernandez Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Diaz-Llanos La Roche and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in a letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) of 3 February 2005 concerning the classification of Madrid, infraestructuras del transporte (Mintra) in the sector ‘public administrations’ within the European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 1995).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143 of 11.6.2005.


title: Case F-134/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Bordini v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Pensions — Correction coefficient — Member State of residence — Concept of residence — Concept of principal residence — Documents in support)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Bordini v Commission
   (Case F-134/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Pensions - Correction coefficient - Member State of residence - Concept of residence - Concept of principal residence - Documents in support)
   (2008/C 128/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giovanni Bordini (Dover, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi, C. Ronzi and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.J. Currall and M.D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — First, annulment of the Commission decision of 25 January 2006 failing to recognise that the applicant is resident in the United Kingdom and, in consequence, failing to apply to his pension the correction coefficient for that Member State and, second, a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs which Mr Bordini incurred in respect of the informal meeting of 5 June 2007;

               3.

               Save in respect of half of the costs which he incurred in respect of the informal meeting of 5 June 2007, orders Mr Bordini bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 87.


title: Case C-69/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Budapest Court of Public Administration and Labour, Hungary)) — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség (References for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Transfers — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Article 2(35)(g)(iii) — Illegal shipment — Incorrect or inconsistent information entered in the document listed in Annex VII to that regulation — Article 50(1) — Penalties applicable in the event of infringement of the provisions of that regulation — Proportionality)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Budapest Court of Public Administration and Labour, Hungary)) — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
   (Case C-69/15) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Transfers - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 2(35)(g)(iii) - Illegal shipment - Incorrect or inconsistent information entered in the document listed in Annex VII to that regulation - Article 50(1) - Penalties applicable in the event of infringement of the provisions of that regulation - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 296/17)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Budapest Court of Public Administration and Labour, Hungary)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L.

      Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2013 of 20 March 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that shipments of waste, such as those referred to in Annex III to that regulation, intended for recovery, must be considered illegal within the meaning of that provision when the document referred to in Annex VII to that same regulation relating to a shipment contains incorrect or inconsistent information, such as that contained in the accompanying documents at issue in the main proceedings, regarding the importer/consignee, the recovery facility and the countries/States concerned, irrespective of whether that information is given correctly in other documents made available to the competent authorities, the intention to mislead the authorities and the implementation of the procedures provided for in Article 24 of that same regulation by the authorities.

               2.

               Article 50(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 255/2013, under which the penalties imposed by the Member States in the event of infringement of the provisions of that regulation must be proportionate, must be interpreted as meaning that a waste shipment for which the accompanying document referred to in Annex VII thereto contains incorrect or inconsistent information may, in principle, be penalised by a fine the amount of which is the same as the fine imposed for infringement of the obligation to complete that document. In the review of proportionality of such a penalty, the referring court must take particular account of the risks which may be caused by that infringement in the field of protection of the environment and human health.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-357/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 June 2016 — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 June 2016 — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba
   (Case C-357/16)
   (2016/C 335/50)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: UAB ‘Gelvora’

      Other party: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the legal relationship between a company that has acquired the right to a debt under an assignment of claim agreement and a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement, where the company carries out acts of debt recovery, fall within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the term ‘product’ used in Article 2(c) of the Directive cover acts performed in exercising the right to the debt acquired under the assignment of claim agreement in the context of debt recovery from a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement entered into with the original creditor?

               3.

               Does the legal relationship between a company that has acquired the right to a debt under an assignment of claim agreement and a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement and has already been established by a final judicial decision and passed to the bailiff for enforcement, where the company is carrying out parallel acts of debt recovery, fall within the scope of the Directive?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does the term ‘product’ used in Article 2(c) of the Directive cover acts performed in exercising the right to the debt acquired under the assignment of claim agreement in the context of debt recovery from a natural person whose indebtedness arose under a consumer credit agreement entered into with the original creditor and has been established by a final judicial decision and passed to the bailiff for enforcement?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case F-67/10: Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/74

      Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-67/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/140)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the Commission's decision not to reimburse two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-41/06.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

                  —

                  annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 22 September 2009 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority and amended by the note of 8 October 2009;

                  —

                  annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision — whatever its form — by which the complaint of 5 April 2010 against the contested decision, sent by the applicant to the appointing authority, was rejected;

                  —

                  annul, in so far as is necessary, the note of 27 April 2010 (HR.D.2/MB/1s Ares (2010) 220139);

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 21 608,75, together with interest calculated at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, and running from the date of the request of 22 September 2009 until actual payment of the sum immediately due by way of reparation for the damage which has been, or is being, suffered by the applicant on account of the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-35/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/30

         Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)
   (Case T-35/17)
   (2017/C 070/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 258 162 designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘iGrill’

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2016 in Case R 538/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-131/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/36

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-131/16)
   (2016/C 191/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, acting as agents, assisted by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the application;

               —

               annul Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as it does not properly identify the state aid measure, classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, and considers it incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision in so far as they consider the excess profit ruling system as state aid incompatible with the internal market and order the recovery of the alleged state aid from the corporate groups to which the recipients belong in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

      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 2(6) TFEU, Article 5(1) and (2) TEU by using the state aid rules to unilaterally define the tax jurisdiction of the Belgian State.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and in its classification as an aid scheme that does not require any further implementing measures within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and Article 107 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFEU in considering that the excess profit ruling system constitutes a state aid measure. The Commission has not evidenced the state resources involved, has not identified the existence of an advantage and has erroneously assessed selectivity and distortion of competition.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid not only as the Belgian entities subject to tax in Belgium but also the multinational groups to which they belong.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the general principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) as recovery may be requested from the multinational groups to which the Belgian entities that have received a ruling belong.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


               2.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/21

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State
   (Case E-2/10)
   2010/C 325/05
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 March 2010 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) that a worker, due to his own contributory negligence, is held liable for losses suffered as a result of an accident at work, when it has been established that the employer has not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place?

               2.

               If the answer to the above question is in the negative, is the Icelandic State then liable to award damages to a worker who suffered an accident at work and had to, contrary to the aforementioned directives, partly or wholly bear the losses suffered, due to his own contributory negligence, on the grounds that the State had not correctly implemented these directives into Icelandic law?


title: Case C-58/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 June 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 — Roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Principles of proportionality and subsidiarity)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 June 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   (Case C-58/08) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 - Roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Principles of proportionality and subsidiarity)
   2010/C 209/04
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen on the application of Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

      Interested parties: Office of Communications, Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, GSM Association

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queens’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 32) — Choice of legal basis — Validity of Articles 4, 2(a) and 6(3) of the regulation, imposing a maximum charge for roaming calls, in light of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.