title: Case C-88/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Assessorato del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale v Seasoft SpA

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Assessorato del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale v Seasoft SpA
   (Case C-88/10)
   2010/C 100/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Palermo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Assessorato del Lavoro, della Previdenza Sociale, della Formazione Professionale e dell’Emigrazione della Regione Sicilia

      Defendant: Seasoft SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the fact that the aid scheme (Ref. NN 91/A/95) established by the Region of Sicily in Article 10 of Regional Law No 27 of 15 May 1991 laid down a mechanism of assistance for a minimum of two, and a maximum of five, years (two years for workers recruited on training and work experience contracts plus a maximum of three years in cases where those contracts are converted into open-ended contracts), was it the intention of the European Commission, in Decision No 95/C 343/11 of 14 November 1995 authorising the scheme’s implementation (‘the authorising decision’):

                           —

                           to permit such a cumulative increase to the duration and financial amount of the assistance (two years + three years) or, alternatively,

                           —

                           to authorise, on a mutually exclusive basis, either the grant of assistance for workers recruited on training and work experience contracts (for the two years’ duration of such contracts) or the grant of assistance for those workers recruited previously on training and work experience contracts which were subsequently converted into open-ended contracts (for the three years from that conversion)?

               2.

               Should the time-limit of the financial year 1997 for the implementation of State aid, laid down by the European Community in the authorising decision approving the scheme established by Regional Law No 27/91, be interpreted as referring to:

                           —

                           the initial provision for expenditure on aid scheduled in any event to be paid in subsequent years (according to the various interpretations of authorised aid possible, which have been referred to), or rather

                           —

                           the time-limit for the actual payment of assistance by the competent regional bodies?

               3.

               Thus, for workers recruited on training and work experience contracts, pursuant to Article 10 of Regional Law No 27/91, for instance on 1 January 1996, and therefore before the time-limit for the period for implementing the State aid set out in the authorising decision, was the Region of Sicily permitted — and indeed required — actually to implement the aid scheme in question for all of the years authorised (that is to say two + three), and even where, as in the example mentioned, the implementation of the authorised scheme entailed the actual payment of the assistance until 31 December 2001 (that is to say, 1996 + five years = 2001)?

               4.

               Was it the intention of the European Commission, by Article 1 of Decision No 2003/195/EC (1) of 16 October 2002, which states: ‘The aid scheme which Italy plans to implement under Article 11(1) of the Sicilian Regional Law No 16 of 27 May 1997 is incompatible with the common market. The scheme may accordingly not be implemented’:

                           —

                           to refuse authorisation of the ‘new’ aid scheme established under Article 11 of Regional Law No 16/97, because the Commission regarded that scheme as an ‘autonomous’ system designed to extend the period for implementing the aid introduced by Article 10 of Regional Law No 27/91 beyond the time-limit of 31 December 1996 to include even the costs of recruiting workers and/or converting contracts carried out in the years 1997 and 1998, or

                           —

                           rather, by that decision, to prevent the Region from materially acquiring the financial resources, in order to prevent the actual payment of the State aid laid down in Article 10 of Regional Law No 27/91, even for workers recruited and/or contracts converted before 31 December 1996?

               5.

               If the Commission’s decision is to be interpreted along the lines of the first option in question 4, is such a decision compatible with the Commission’s interpretation of Article 87 of the Treaty in determining similar cases relating to the exemptions from the costs of social security contributions on training and work experience contracts in Decision 2000/128/EC (2) of 11 May 1999 (concerning the laws of the Italian State and specifically referred to in the grounds of the decision of incompatibility of 2002) and Decision 2003/739/EC (3) of 13 May 2003 (concerning the laws of the Region of Sicily)?

               6.

               If the Commission’s decision is to be interpreted along the lines of the second option in question 4, what interpretation is to be given to the previous decision authorising the aid measures, taking into account the dual meaning that may be ascribed to the adjective ‘further’, that is to say ‘further in relation to the budget as laid down in the Commission’s decision’ or ‘further in relation to the provision for finance made by the Region only until the financial year 1996’?

               7.

               Ultimately, which aid is to be regarded as lawful, and which as unlawful, according to the Commission?

               8.

               Which of the parties to the present proceedings (the company or the Regional Ministry), has the burden of proving that the budget laid down by the Commission itself has not been exceeded?

               9.

               Should the award of statutory interest to a company for late payment of assistance that is held to be lawful and admissible be taken into account in determining whether the budget originally approved by the authorising decision has been exceeded?

               10.

               If the award of such interest is relevant in determining whether that budget has been exceeded, what measure of interest is to be applied?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 77, p. 57.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 42, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 267, p. 29.


title: Case C-212/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2012 — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachman-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2012 — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachman-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-212/12)
   2012/C 287/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helmut Butz, Christel Bachman-Butz, Frederike Butz

      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 first flight is delayed by a period of time which falls within the limit defined in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, but the connecting flight is delayed by a period of time which exceeds that limit and arrives at the place of 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 C-455/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of  1 December 2005  in Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 1 December 2005 in Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel
   (Case C-455/05)
   (2006/C 60/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg of 1 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH and Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel on the following question:
   Is Article 13B(d)(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted, with respect to the concept of ‘Übernahme von Verbindlichkeiten’ (assumption of obligations), as meaning that only pecuniary obligations are to be subsumed under that concept or does that provision also include the assumption of other obligations, for example, service obligations?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-64/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Dr. Hans Heubach GmbH & Co KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 144/49
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             was a leader and its conclusions as to the appropriate level of
                                                                        deterrent uplift in its assessment of the fine.
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision, to the extent that it finds
      that Archer Daniels Midland Company (‘ADM’) has                   Finally, the applicant claims that the defendant has violated
      violated Article 81 EC Treaty and Article 53 EEA                  Article 15(2) of Regulation no. 17 and rules applicable to the
      Agreement by agreeing (i) to restrict capacity and (ii) to        setting of fines. In this regard, the applicant considers that
      designate price leaders in relation to citric acid;               there has been an infringement of the principles of legal
                                                                        certainty, inasmuch as the Guidelines of Fines Methodology
                                                                        was applied to a cartel which ended many years before
—     annul Article 3 of the Decision in so far as it pertains to       these Guidelines were adopted; equal treatment; protection of
      ADM;                                                              legitimate expectations and proportionality. In particular, the
                                                                        Commission did not correctly assesse the value of ADM’s
                                                                        cooperation
—     in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision as it
      pertains to ADM, so as to annul or substantially reduce
      the fine imposed on ADM therein;
—     order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Dr. Hans Heu-
                                                                        bach GmbH & Co KG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-64/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/100)
The applicant in the present case challenges the Commission
Decision of 5 December 2001, relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA                                     (Language of the case: German)
Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric Acid), to the
extent that it finds that ADM has violated these provisions by
agreeing to restrict capacity and to designate price leaders in
relation to citric acid.                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Dr. Hans
                                                                        Heubach GmbH & Co KG, of Langelsheim (Germany), rep-
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the Decision       resented by Frank Montag and Günter Bauer, lawyers.
is inadequately reasoned, in as much as:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     the Commission did not give proper reasons regarding
      how it took account of the damage to and the impact on
      competition or in relation to its decision not to take into       —     annul Article 3(b) of the contested decision;
      account, in assessing the level of ADM’s fine, ADM’s EEA
      in the affected product market;                                   —     reduce to a reasonable sum the amount of the fine
                                                                              imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;
—     it failed to state on what basis an uplift of 100 % could
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      be considered necessary to have a deterrent effect;
—     the Commission did not state reasons for assessing ADM
      as a leader.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The contested decision is the same as that at issue in Case
The applicant submits that there has been an infringement by            T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v Commission (not yet
the Commission of essential procedural requirements, in that            published). The applicant argues that the basic amount of the
it failed to put to ADM its key conclusions regarding the               fine corresponds to more than 100 % of its EEA-wide product
nature of the violations in question, its conclusions that ADM          turnover in 1998, and that the amount of the fine imposed on
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/50               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
the applicant is the result of numerous errors on the part of           Action brought on 11 March 2002 by Griffin Europe
the defendant concerning the determination and assessment               Headquarter N.V. against the European Parliament and
of the facts for the purposes of calculating the fine. In addition,                  the Council for the European Union
the defendant infringed numerous fundamental principles of
Community law.
                                                                                (Case T-70/02)
The applicant claims that the Guidelines (1) infringe                                            (2002/C 144/101)
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62. Its complaint basically
concerns the flat-rate determination of the amount of fines
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines. In the                                  (Language of the case: English)
applicant’s view, the amount of fines should be calculated only
in proportion to turnover, and the flat-rate determination
provided for in the Guidelines in respect of smaller undertak-
ings chiefly results in fines which are unreasonable and
disproportionate. Consequently, Article 3(b) of the contested           An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
decision is likewise unlawful.                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 2002 by
                                                                        Griffin Europe Headquarter N.V., represented by Mr Koen Van
                                                                        Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo, LLP,
In addition, the applicant maintains that, even assuming that           Brussels (Belgium).
the Guidelines are lawful, the defendant misapplied them. In
particular, the defendant misjudged the constituent element of
the contravention which is the seriousness of the act. It should
have had regard to the fact that the contravention was only             The applicant claims that the Court should:
moderately serious and had little effect on the market, and to
the fact that the undertakings concerned did not adhere to the
                                                                        —     order the partial annulment of Decision 2455/2001/EC
price agreements. The fact that only a very small proportion of
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council dated
the applicant’s total turnover was affected by the contravention
                                                                              20 November 2001 establishing a list of priority sub-
constitutes an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation
                                                                              stances in the field of water policy and amending Directive
No 17/62, and, in addition, the limited economic efficiency of
                                                                              2000/60/EC, so as to remove diuron and isoproturon
the applicant was wrongly left out of account.
                                                                              from the measure;
                                                                        —     order the Defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
The applicant argues that, in any event, the amount of the fine
                                                                              these proceedings.
is contrary to the general principles of proportionality and
reasonableness, and that the failure to take into account the
small product turnover of the applicant as compared with the
total turnover resulted in an infringement of the principle
of equal treatment. Quite different fines were imposed on
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
undertakings having a totally similar strength in the market.
                                                                        The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
Lastly, the applicant maintains that the calculation of the
                                                                        products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
penalty by the defendant infringes Article 7 of the ECHR,
                                                                        products’ active substances, diuron and isoproturon, in the list
inasmuch as the financial penalty imposed on the applicant
                                                                        of priority substances in the field of water policy. This list is
reflects a range of penalisation which has twice been decisively
                                                                        established by the defendants in execution of Directive 2000/
extended since the termination of the contravention. The
                                                                        60/EC (1). The products listed are considered to present a risk
systematic alteration of the practice followed by the defendant,
                                                                        to or via the aquatic environment and their emissions must be
resulting from the introduction of the Guidelines and the
                                                                        reduced. Furthermore, the contested decision indicates some
change in the method of determining fines at the end of 2001,
                                                                        of the applicant’s products as priority substances ’under
constitutes an extension of the range of penalisation which
                                                                        review’, which will lead, according to the applicant, to a
cannot be applied to conduct which occurred before that
                                                                        classification as priority hazardous substances. These substanc-
extension took place.
                                                                        es pose a higher risk for the aquatic environment and their
                                                                        emissions must be eliminated.
(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC     The applicant objects to the procedure and the methodology
    Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
                                                                        used by the defendants when adopting the contested Decision.
                                                                        To establish the contested list, the defendants used a summary
                                                                        procedure as laid down in Article 16 (2), second paragraph, of
                                                                        Directive 2000/60.


title: Case C-454/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/12

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Case C-454/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Global Steel Wire, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-438/12 to T-441/12 and, in particular, in Case T-438/12, Global Steel Wire S.A. v Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law in declaring inadmissible the plea in law relating to the infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when evaluating the second request for inability to pay and, consequently, the admissibility of the action.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in evaluating the evidence or clearly distorting the evidence, failing to carry out a full review exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, infringing the right to effective judicial protection and failing to state reasons.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 August 1995 in Case C-80/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): G. H. E. J. Wielockx v. Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen (Article 52 of the EC Treaty - Requirement of equal treatment - Tax on non-residents' income)

text:
 No C 268/8            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                             court between G. H. E. J. Wielockx and Inspecteur der
                                                                     Directe Belastingen — on the interpretation of Article 52 of
                      of 11 August 1995                              the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
in Case C-63/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
Tribunal de Commerce, Mons ): Groupement National des                Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Négociants en Pommes de Terre de Belgique v. ITM                     Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward
               Belgium SA and Vocarex SA i 1 )                       ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn,
 (Free movement of goods — Prohibition of sales yielding             Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,
                   very low profit margins)                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
                          ( 95/C 268/15 )
               (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                        a rule laid down by a Member State which allows its
                                                                     residents to deduct from their taxable income business
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         profits which they allocate to form a pension reserve but
         published in the European Court Reports)                    denies that benefit to Community nationals liable to pay tax
                                                                     who, although resident in another Member State, receive all
                                                                     or almost all of their income in the first State, cannot be
In Case C-63 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of      justified by the fact that the periodic pension payments
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                          subsequently drawn out of the pension reserve by the
( Commercial Court), Mons, for a preliminary ruling in the           non-resident taxpayer are not taxed in the first State but in
proceedings pending before that court between                        the State of residence — with which the first State has
Groupement National des Négociants en Pommes de Terre                concluded a double-taxation convention — even if, under
de Belgique v. ITM Belgium SA and Vocarex SA — on the                the tax system in force in the first State, a strict
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court            correspondence between the deductibility of the amounts
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,                 added to the pension reserve and the liability to tax of the
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ),             amounts drawn out of it cannot be achieved by generalizing
C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch , Judges; G.              the benefit. Such discrimination is therefore contrary to
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                    Article 52 of the EC Treaty.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
                                                                     (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
Article 30 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not
applying where a Member State prohibits by legislation any
sale which yields only a very low profit margin.
(') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        of 11 August 1995
                      of 11 August 1995                             in Case C-92/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
in Case C-80/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the        Court of Appeal ( Civil Division )): Secretary of State for
Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ): G. H. E. J. Wielockx v.          Social Security, Chief Adjudication Officer v. Rose Graham
            Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen (*)                                             and Others ( l )
(Article 52 of the EC Treaty — Requirement of equal                  (Equality between men and women — Invalidity benefits —
        treatment — Tax on non-residents ' income)                                    Link with pensionable age)
                          ( 95/C 268/16 )                                                      ( 95/C 268/17 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                   In Case C-92/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty by the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division ),
In Case C-80/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of       London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch               before that court between Secretary of State for Social
( Regional Court of Appeal, 's-Hertogenbosch ) for a                 Security, Chief Adjudication Officer and Rose Graham,


28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 233/19
Action brought on 20 August 2002 by the Republic                        The ecopoint system under Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of
of Austria against the Commission of the European                       Accession is based on the principle of declarations. Accord-
                           Communities                                  ingly, if journeys are clearly declared by a driver as transit
                                                                        journeys, they are included within the ecopoint statistics and
                                                                        are relevant to the question whether the 108 % threshold has
                         (Case C-296/02)                                been exceeded, whereupon the Commission is bound under
                                                                        Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9, in conjunction with para-
                                                                        graph 3 of Annex 5 thereto, to adopt appropriate measures,
                         (2002/C 233/30)                                namely to reduce the number of ecopoints for the following
                                                                        year in accordance with a calculation method laid down in the
                                                                        Annex to the Protocol. It cannot, in the light of the principle
                                                                        of declarations, be for the Republic of Austria, either legally or
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               factually, to provide evidence in each individual case that,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            where a journey is clearly declared to be a transit journey, such
Communities on 20 August 2002 by the Republic of Austria,               a transit journey actually took place. The Republic of Austria
represented by Dr Harald Dossi of the Constitutional Service            merely has to deduct journeys declared to be transit journeys
of the Federal Chancellor’s Office of the Republic of Austria,          where it is beyond doubt that, despite a clear declaration, there
with an address for service in Luxembourg care of the                   cannot have been a transit journey. It clearly follows, therefore,
Ambassador, Dr Christian Strohal, Austrian Embassy, 3 rue               that the 108 % threshold was exceeded in 2001. In the light of
des Bains.                                                              its decision of 24 July 2002, the Commission consequently
                                                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under Protocol 9 to the 1994 Act
                                                                        of Accession, in particular its obligations under Article 11(2)(c)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             in conjunction with Article 16 and paragraph 3 of Annex 5 to
                                                                        that Protocol, thereby creating grounds for annulment on
                                                                        account of infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol
—     annul the negative opinion of the Commission of 24 July           No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession pursuant to the second
      2002 definitively refusing the request for action submit-         paragraph of Article 230 EC.
      ted to the Commission by the Republic of Austria under
      the second paragraph of Article 232 EC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            (In the alternative)
In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court       Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol No 9 to the
                                                                        1994 Act of Accession. In relation to the grounds, the
should:
                                                                        applicant refers to its arguments regarding the first plea in law.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 24 July 2002
      ordering the non-application of Article 11(2)(c) of Proto-        (1 ) Protocol No 9 on road, rail and combined transport in Austria.
      col No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession ( 1) and the full
      award of ecopoints for the year 2002;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-357/99 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/31)
(Main application)
Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol No 9 to the
1994 Act of Accession by definitively refusing the request              By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of
made under the second paragraph of Article 232 EC. The                  the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Commission wrongly seeks to deduct from the number of                   register of Case C-357/99: Italian Republic v Council of the
transit journeys declared overall for the year 2001 (1 640 416)         European Union.
journeys declared as transit journeys in respect of which there
is no information on departure (91 250), journeys declared as
transit journeys where both entry and departure were effected           (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
at the same border point (49 504) and those where both entry
and departure were effected in the same Member State (11 374)
and journeys involving ‘piggyback transportation’ (10 764).


title: Case C-162/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ — Accident caused in the courtyard of a farm by a tractor to which a trailer was attached)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/11

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.
      (Case C-162/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘use of vehicles’ - Accident caused in the courtyard of a farm by a tractor to which a trailer was attached))
      (2014/C 395/14)
      Language of the case: Slovenian

         Referring court

      Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Damijan Vnuk

         Defendant: Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ in that article covers any use of a vehicle that is consistent with the normal function of that vehicle. That concept may therefore cover the manoeuvre of a tractor in the courtyard of a farm in order to bring the trailer attached to that tractor into a barn, as in the case in the main proceedings, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case T-403/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — JYSK v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project — Undertaking responsible for project implementation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — JYSK v Commission
   (Case T-403/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - ERDF - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project - Undertaking responsible for project implementation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 195/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JYSK sp. z o.o. (Radomsko, Poland) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Lyal, B.-R. Killmann and M. Clausen, and subsequently by R. Lyal and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 3228 of 11 May 2015, refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ drawn up by the Republic of Poland for the 2007-2013 programming period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders JYSK sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-472/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Panasonic Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Panasonic Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane
   (Case C-472/12)
   2012/C 399/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Panasonic Italia SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane

      Questions referred

               1.

               Primarily — was it necessary, before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 754/2004, (1) to classify under heading 8471, or under heading 8528, a plasma colour monitor with a diagonal measurement of the screen of 106,6 centimetres, equipped with two loudspeakers and a remote control, and with an input device designed for the insertion of a video card (very inexpensive and easy to find and insert) which was not imported with the screen, but which, once inserted, meant that the monitor was capable of receiving composite AV video signals and could be connected, not only to automatic data-processing machines, but also to recording and reproducing apparatus, DVD players, video cameras and satellite receivers?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, the Court of Justice is asked to assess and determine whether Regulation No 754/2004 actually requires a monitor of that type to be classified under heading 8528;

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is affirmative, the Court is asked whether or not the provisions laid down in that regard by Regulation No 754/2004 have to be regarded as interpretative and, as such, as having retroactive effect save where earlier specific provisions to the contrary apply.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 118, p. 32).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2003 in Case C-57/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon): Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki AE v Elliniko Dimosio, (Public works contracts — Rules for participating — Group of contractors submitting a tender — Change in the composition of the group — Prohibition laid down in the contract documents — Compatibility with Community law — Review procedures)

text:
C 55/4                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.3.2003
and C-16/01), on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30                 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
EC and of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December                        lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                   of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of                   works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
foodstuffs (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/                 Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                        coordination of procedures for the award of public service
27 January 1997 (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21), the Court (Sixth                      contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), and of Council Directive 93/
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                      procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                  L 199, p. 54), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                       C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,                V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
in which it has ruled:                                                       (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
                                                                             H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/112/              given a judgment on 23 January 2003, in which it has ruled:
EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising        1.    Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
of foodstuffs, as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European                     coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997, preclude a                       contracts does not preclude national rules which prohibit a
system such as that established by Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the                   change in the composition of a group consortium taking part
Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr mit Lebensmitteln, Verzehrprodukten,                 in a procedure for the award of a public works contract or a
Zusatzstoffen, kosmetischen Mitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen                      public works concession which occurs after submission of
(Lebensmittelgesetz 1975) (Federal Law on trade in foodstuffs,                     tenders;
products intended for human consumption, additives, cosmetic
                                                                             2.    In so far as a decision of a contracting authority adversely
products and consumer goods) which lays down a general prohibition,
                                                                                affects the rights conferred on a consortium by Community law
subject to prior authorisation, of all health-related information on
                                                                                in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract,
the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs.
                                                                                the consortium must be able to avail itself of the review
                                                                                procedures provided for by Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.                                                        21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and public
                                                                                works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC
                                                                                of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public service contracts.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 23 January 2003
in Case C-57/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
from the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon): Makedoniko Metro,
             Mikhaniki AE v Elliniko Dimosio ( 1),                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
(Public works contracts — Rules for participating — Group                                              of 30 January 2003
of contractors submitting a tender — Change in the compo-
sition of the group — Prohibition laid down in the contract                  in Case C-226/01: Commission of the European Communi-
documents — Compatibility with Community law — Review                                          ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)
                            procedures)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                          (2003/C 55/07)                                     Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
                                                                                Directive 76/160/EEC)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Danish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-57/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-226/01, Commission of the European Communities
Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki AE and Elliniko Dimosio,                         (Agent: H. C. Støvlbæk) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agents:
on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of                     J. Molde and J. Bering Liisberg): Application for a declaration


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2002 in Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Action becoming devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Award of costs)

text:
26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/33
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in
which it:                                                                                of 27 September 2002
1.     Dismisses the action;                                               in Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Public procurement — Rejection of tender — Failure to
                                                                           exercise power to seek clarification of tender — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Expedited procedure)
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited, of which the
                                                                           registered office is in Redhill, Surrey (United Kingdom),
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by C Thomas and C Kennedy-Loest, Solicitors,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J
                                                                           Forman) — application for annulment of the Commission
                       of 11 February 2003                                 decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the applicant’s tender
                                                                           in procurement procedure EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW —
                                                                           TACIS — (Re-tender) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt v European Parlia-                     Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
                               ment ( 1)                                   and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
(Officials — Reports — Promotion — Amendment to the
                 rules — Transitional measures)
                                                                           1.     Annuls the Commission decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the
                                                                                tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited for Lot 1 in the
                          (2003/C 101/59)                                         tender procedure for EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW — TACIS
                                                                                — (Re-tender);
                    (Language of the case: French)                         2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
In Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in La Hulpe (Belgium), rep-
resented by H. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
resetting at zero the tally of promotion points held by the
applicant on 1 January 2000 — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura                                       of 13 December 2002
Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2003,               in Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     The Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001 resetting at zero         (Action for annulment — Action becoming devoid of purpose
       the tally of promotion points held by Mr Leonhardt on                         — No need to adjudicate — Award of costs)
       1 January 2000 is annulled.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/61)
2.     The Parliament shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
                                                                           Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt, living in Schoten
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/34                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           26.4.2003
(Belgium), represented by M. van Dam, Avocat, against the                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. van                                                     INSTANCE
Vliet and W. Wils) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286098 of 9 February                                                 of 31 January 2003
2001, whereby the Commission rejected the application by
the applicant for exclusion of the boat Arizona from the scope
of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999                      in Case T-224/02 R: Miguel Forcat Icardo v Commission
on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland                                        of the European Communities
waterway transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1) — the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,                (Proceedings for interim measures — Officials — Inadmissi-
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                              bility — Urgency — No urgency)
order on 13 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                                (2003/C 101/63)
1)    Declares that there is no further need to adjudicate;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2)    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.                                                    In Case T-224/02 R: Miguel Forcat Icardo, an official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                             Brussels, represented by M.A. Lucas, avocat, against Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
                                                                             H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application, essentially, in the first
                                                                             place, for compliance with the Commission’s undertaking to
                                                                             second the applicant to the United Nations Organisation for
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Food and Agriculture in Rome and, second, for suspension of
                                                                             the applicant’s staff report of 18 March 2002 covering the
                                                                             period from 1999 to 2001 — the President of the Court of
                       of 11 February 2003                                   First Instance has made an order on 31 January 2003, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-83/02: Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank (1)
                                                                             1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(Staff of the European Central Bank — Formal warning —
Measure having an adverse effect — Pre-litigation procedure                  2.    The costs are reserved.
                        — Inadmissibility)
                          (2003/C 101/62)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 February 2003
In Case T-83/02: Jan Pflugradt, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, Rechtsanwalt, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against European Central                  in Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi v Council of the European
Bank (Agents: V. Saintot, T. Gilliams and B. Wägenbaur) —                    Union and Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
application for the annulment of the letter of 28 February
2002 by which the European Central Bank informed the                         (Action for annulment — Council Regulation — Action
applicant that a formal-warning procedure was being instituted               brought against the Council and the commission — Partial
against him — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                              inadmissibility)
composed of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                                (2003/C 101/64)
11 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
1.    The application is inadmissible.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                             In Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi, residing in Dublin, represent-
                                                                             ed by A. Lyon, Solicitor, and S. Cox, Barrister, against Council
( 1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.                                                  of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop)
                                                                             and Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                             M. Wilderspin and C. Brown) — application for partial


title: Case C-50/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Public sector — Successive contracts — Misuse — Compensation for damage — Conditions for the payment of compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/23

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
   (Case C-50/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Public sector - Successive contracts - Misuse - Compensation for damage - Conditions for the payment of compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2014/C 52/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rocco Papalia

      Defendant: Comune di Aosta

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Interpretation of Clause 5 of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Public administration — Compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire — Conditions — Evidence of damage incurred — Need to prove that better work opportunities were foregone

      Operative part of the order

   The framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding measures provided for by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of misuse by a public employer of successive fixed-term employment contracts, provides solely for the right for the worker concerned to obtain compensation for the damage which he considers himself to have therefore incurred, without any transformation of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship for an indefinite period, where the right to that compensation is subject to the obligation on that worker to prove that he was forced to forego better work opportunities, although the effect of that obligation is to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise by that worker of rights conferred by European Union law.
   It is for the referring court to assess to what extent the provisions of domestic law aimed at penalising the misuse by the public administration of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships comply with those principles.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-412/00: Action brought on 10 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
27.1.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 28/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                        the contracting authority to separate off non-priority part
beamt, by a decision of that Court of 29 September 2000                       services and to award contracts for them separately in
in the case of Felix Swoboda against the Austrian National                    order to preserve the priority nature of the service?
                               Bank
                                                                         (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                         (Case C-411/00)
                          (2001/C 28/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Bundesvergabeamt
on 29 September 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 10 November, for a preliminary ruling in the case            Action brought on 10 November 2000 by the Com-
of Felix Swoboda GmbH against the Austrian National Bank,                mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
on the following questions:                                                                       guese Republic
                                                                                (Case C-412/00)
—    Must a service which serves a single purpose, but which
     could be subdivided into part services, be classified as a
     single service consisting of a main service and accessory,                                    (2001/C 28/27)
     supporting services in accordance with the scheme of
     Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in particular of the types of
     services contained in Annex I A and I B, and treated as a           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     service listed in Annex I A or I B of the directive according       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     to its main object, or must each part service instead be            10 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
     considered separately to establish whether the service is           Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its
     subject to the directive in full as a priority service or to        Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     only individual provisions thereof as a non-priority                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
     service?                                                            Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    How far may a service which describes a specific type of
     service (e.g. transport services) be broken down into
     individual services in accordance with the scheme of                —    Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     Directive 92/50/EEC without infringing the provisions                    prescribed period all the provisions necessary to comply
     on the award of service contracts or undermining the                     with:
     effet utile of the directive on services?
                                                                              (a)   Commission Directive 98/54/EC (1) of 16 July 1998
                                                                                amending Directives 71/250/EEC, 72/199/EEC,
—    Must the services referred to in this case (having regard                      73/46/EEC and repealing Directive 75/84/EEC;
     to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/EEC) be classified as
     services listed in Annex I A of Directive 92/50/EEC
     (Category 2, land transport services) and contracts which                (b) Commission Directive 98/68/EC (2) of 10 September
     have as their object such services thus be awarded in                          1998 laying down the standard document referred
     accordance with the provisions of Titles III to VI of the                      to in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and
     directive, or must they be classified as services listed                       certain rules for checks at the introduction into the
     in Annex I B of Directive 92/50/EEC (in particular                             Community of feedingstuffs from third countries;
     Category 20, Supporting and auxiliary transport services,
     and Category 27, Other services) and contracts which                     (c)   Commission Directive 98/82/EC (3) of 27 October
     have as their object such services thus be awarded in                          1998 amending the Annexes to Council Directives
     accordance with Articles 14 and 16, and under which                            86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the
     CPC reference number must they be subsumed?                                    fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in
                                                                                and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and
                                                                                certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
—    In the event that consideration of the part services leads                     vegetables respectively;
     to the conclusion that a part service listed in Annex I A
     of the directive which per se is subject in full to the
     provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC is, by way of an                       the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
     exception, not subject in full to the provisions of the                  under the Treaty.
     directive on account of the principle of predominance
     laid down in Article 10 thereof, is there an obligation on          —    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/16                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.1.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 10 November 2000 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                            guese Republic
relied on in Case C-407/00 (4); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 13 February 1999, 31 March 1999 and 30 April                                             (Case C-414/00)
1999 respectively.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/29)
( 1) OJ 1998 L 208, p. 49.                                               An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
( 2) OJ 1998 L 261, p. 32.                                               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
( 3) OJ 1998 L 290, p. 25.                                               10 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
( 4) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                                 Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission                            prescribed period all the provisions necessary to comply
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                         with Council Directive 97/78/EC (1) of 18 December
                               Netherlands                                     1997 laying down the principles governing the organis-
                                                                               ation of veterinary checks on products entering the
                            (Case C-413/00)                                    Community from third countries, the Portuguese Repub-
                                                                               lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10
                                                                               and 249 of the EC Treaty; and
                             (2001/C 28/28)
                                                                         —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               Pleas in law and main arguments
9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Mongin and H. M. H. Speyart,              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for              relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition
service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of          of the directive expired on 1 June 1999.
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1998 L 24, p. 9.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              (2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
1.     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 98/41/EC (1) of 18 June 1998 on the
       registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships
       operating to or from ports of the Member States of the
       Community, or in any event by not informing the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
       Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of the                   Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
       Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that       9 November 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert
       directive.                                                        Pflanzl, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,
                                                                         (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and
2.     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.            (4) Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg
                                                                                (Case C-415/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 28/30)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-407/00 (2); the period for transposition expired on               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1 January 1999.                                                          European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                                                                         tungssenat Salzburg of 9 November 2000, received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary
(1) OJ 1998 L 188, p. 35.                                                ruling in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert Pflanzl, (2)
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                                  Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, (3) Grundver-
                                                                         kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and (4) Grundver-
                                                                         kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg on the following
                                                                         question:


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-277/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht): EU-Wood-Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Waste intended for recovery — Objections — Powers of the authority of dispatch — Recovery contravening the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC or those of national provisions — Power of the authority of dispatch to raise such objections)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-277/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht):
         EU-Wood-Trading GmbH
       v
         Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH

       (1)

   (Environment - Waste - Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste - Waste intended for recovery - Objections - Powers of the authority of dispatch - Recovery contravening the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC or those of national provisions - Power of the authority of dispatch to raise such objections)
   (2005/C 45/04)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-277/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany), made by decision of 3 July 2002, received on 29 July 2002, in the proceedings between EU-Wood-Trading GmbH and Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH Ä the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Decisions 98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 and 1999/816/EC of 24 November 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that the objections to a shipment of waste for recovery which the competent authorities of dispatch and of destination are empowered to raise may be based on considerations connected not only to the actual transport of the waste in each competent authority's area of jurisdiction but also on the recovery planned for that shipment.

               2.

               The first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, as amended by Decisions 98/368 and 1999/816, is to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of an objection to a shipment of waste the competent authority of dispatch may, in assessing the effects on health and the environment of the recovery envisaged at the destination, provided it complies with the principle of proportionality, rely on the criteria to which, to avoid such effects, the recovery of waste is subject in the State of dispatch, even where those criteria are stricter than those in force in the State of destination.

               3.

               The second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, as amended by Decisions 98/368 and 1999/816, is to be interpreted as meaning that a competent authority of dispatch may not rely on those provisions to raise an objection to a shipment of waste based on the fact that the planned recovery does not comply with the national laws and regulations for protection of the environment, public order, public safety or health protection.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Joined Cases C-148/13 to C-150/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A (C-148/13), B (C-149/13), C (C-150/13) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (References for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Article 4 — Assessment of facts and circumstances — Methods of assessment — Acceptance of certain types of evidence — Extent of the competent national authority’s powers — Fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation — Differences between, on the one hand, the limitations that apply to the verification of statements and documentary or other evidence as regards the declared sexual orientation of an applicant for asylum and, on the other hand, those that apply to the verification of those elements as regards other grounds for persecution — Directive 2005/85/EC — Minimum standards in respect of procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Article 13 — Requirements for a personal interview — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 1 — Human dignity — Article 7 — Respect for private and family life)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — A (C-148/13), B (C-149/13), C (C-150/13) v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Joined Cases C-148/13 to C-150/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Article 4 - Assessment of facts and circumstances - Methods of assessment - Acceptance of certain types of evidence - Extent of the competent national authority’s powers - Fear of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation - Differences between, on the one hand, the limitations that apply to the verification of statements and documentary or other evidence as regards the declared sexual orientation of an applicant for asylum and, on the other hand, those that apply to the verification of those elements as regards other grounds for persecution - Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards in respect of procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Article 13 - Requirements for a personal interview - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 1 - Human dignity - Article 7 - Respect for private and family life))
   (2015/C 046/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A (C-148/13), B (C-149/13), C (C-150/13)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Intervener: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 4(3)(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and Article 13(3)(a) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005, on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of the assessment by the competent national authorities, acting under the supervision of the courts, of the facts and circumstances concerning the declared sexual orientation of an applicant for asylum, whose application is based on a fear of persecution on grounds of that sexual orientation, the statements of that applicant and the documentary and other evidence submitted in support of his application being subject to an assessment by those authorities, founded on questions based only on stereotyped notions concerning homosexuals.

               2)

               Article 4 of Directive 2004/83, read in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of that assessment, the competent national authorities from carrying out detailed questioning as to the sexual practices of an applicant for asylum.

               3)

               Article 4 of Directive 2004/83, read in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of that assessment, the acceptance by those authorities of evidence such as the performance by the applicant for asylum concerned of homosexual acts, his submission to ‘tests’ with a view to establishing his homosexuality or, yet, the production by him of films of such acts.

               4)

               Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/83 and Article 13(3)(a) of Directive 2005/85 must be interpreted as precluding, in the context of that assessment, the competent national authorities from finding that the statements of the applicant for asylum lack credibility merely because the applicant did not rely on his declared sexual orientation on the first occasion he was given to set out the ground for persecution.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-31/01: Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
10.3.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
te Brussel by order of 15 January 2001 in the case of NV
               Robelco and NV Robeco Groep                            —     declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            European Parliament and Council Directive 98/4/EC (1) of
                         (Case C-23/01)                                     16 February 1998 amending Directive 93/38/EEC (2)
                                                                            coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                            operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
                         (2001/C 79/34)                                     munications sectors or by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                            to comply with it, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
                                                                            its obligations under Article 2(1) of the said Directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 January 2001 by the
                                                                      —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Court of Appeal, Brussels), which
was received at the Court Registry on 22 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of NV Robelco and NV Robeco
Groep on the following questions:                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
—    Must Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC          Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
     of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the               a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted             upon each Member State carries by implication an obligation
     as meaning that the possibility laid down therein for            on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
     protection by Member States can be afforded only against         laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 February
     the use of a sign which is identical to the trade mark or        1999 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     can it also be afforded in that case against the use of a        visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
     sign similar to the trade mark?                                  the conclusions of the Commission.
—    If that protection can also be afforded against a sign           (1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 1.
     similar to the trade mark, does unlawful similarity within       (2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
     the meaning of the abovementioned article require that
     confusion can arise as a consequence or is likelihood of
     association sufficient, in the sense that in the minds of
     those confronted by the trade mark and the sign one
     will suggest the other without any confusion resulting
     therefrom, or must no likelihood of association at all
     exist in this respect?
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
                                                                      di Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria by order of that court
                                                                      of 12 July 2000 in the case of Enirisorse SpA against
                                                                                Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                                (Case C-34/01 to C-38/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/36)
Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
                                                                      Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria (Supreme Court of Cassation,
                         (Case C-31/01)                               Tax Chamber) of 12 July 2000, which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 25 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      in the case of Enirisorse SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                         (2001/C 79/35)                               on the following questions:
                                                                      1.    Does allocation to a public undertaking — operating in
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                 the market for dockside unloading and loading of goods
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January                  — of a significant proportion of a charge (port charge on
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         loading and unloading goods) paid to the State by
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                       operators which have not obtained any services from that
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                    undertaking, constitute a special or exclusive right or a
Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                    measure contrary to the rules of the Treaty, in particular
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre                       the rules on competition, within the meaning of Article
Wagner.                                                                     90(1) of the Treaty?


title: Case T-281/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX — Earlier national word mark metabiarex — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)
   (Case T-281/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX - Earlier national word mark metabiarex - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 245/19
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH (Springe, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2013 (Case R 2022/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH and Ms Sofia Golam

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case T-183/12: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/17

         Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
   (Case T-183/12)
   2012/C 200/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol).

      Form of order sought

   By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision dated 16 February 2012 of the European Police Office (Europol) whereby it awarded to the company Capgemini Nederland BV the framework contract in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104;

               —

               order Europol to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which the award to them of framework contract would have brought, which they estimate at EUR 161 887, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment; and

               —

               order Europol to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, because Europol altered in the course of the tendering procedure many of the award criteria in relation to the assessment both of the technical and financial offers of the tenderers, blatantly infringing the applicable provisions of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (1) and the Implementing Rules 2342/2002 (2) and settled case-law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.