title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-251/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa ): Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda v Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third party: Ministério Público (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of television sets from Turkey — Determination of the person liable for the customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties)

text:
21.12.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/13
2.    Where a company formed in accordance with the law of a                1.    Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of
      Member State (‘A’) in which it has its registered office exercises          24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties
      its freedom of establishment in another Member State (‘B’),                 or export duties which have not been required of the person
      Articles 43 EC and 48 EC require Member State B to recognise                liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
      the legal capacity and, consequently, the capacity to be a party            involving the obligation to pay such duties must be interpreted
      to legal proceedings which the company enjoys under the law of              as meaning that:
      its State of incorporation (’A’).
                                                                                —     in order to determine whether there is an ’error made by
( 1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                                the competent authorities themselves’, account must be
                                                                                taken both of the conduct of the customs authorities
                                                                                which issued the certificate permitting the application of
                                                                                preferential treatment and of that of the central customs
                                                                                authorities;
                                                                                —     the routine issuing by the authorities of the exporting
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                country of certificates permitting the application of prefer-
                                                                                ential treatment under association rules constitutes evi-
                                                                                dence of such an error when those authorities must have
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                been aware, on the one hand, of the existence in the
                                                                                exporting country of a policy of encouraging exports,
                        of 14 November 2002                                             involving the duty-free importation of components orig-
                                                                                inating in third countries for incorporation in goods
                                                                                intended for export to the Community and, on the other
in Case C-251/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                               hand, of the absence in the exporting country of provisions
the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa ):                              enabling collection of the compensatory levy to which the
Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda v Chefe da                                  application of preferential treatment to exports to the
Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção                                  Community of goods thus obtained was subject;
das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third party: Ministério Púb-
                                  lico (1)
                                                                                —     the fact that some of the relevant provisions of the
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Importation of                                      association rules were not published in the Official Journal
television sets from Turkey — Determination of the person                               of the European Communities and the circumstance
liable for the customs debt — Post-clearance recovery of                                that those provisions were not implemented, or were
                             customs duties)                                            implemented incorrectly, in the exporting country over a
                                                                                period of more than 20 years constitute evidence that such
                                                                                an error could not reasonably have been detected by the
                            (2002/C 323/14)                                             person liable.
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            2.    The conduct of the authorities of the exporting country does not
                                                                                affect the determination of the person by whom the customs
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            debt is payable or the right of the authorities of the importing
                     in the European Court Reports)                               country to take action for post-clearance recovery thereof.
                                                                            3.    Articles 22 and 25 of the Agreement establishing an associ-
In Case C-251/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                ation between the European Economic Community and Turkey
EC by the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa
                                                                                do not require the national customs authorities of a Member
(Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                                State, acting on the Commission’s advice, to have recourse to
before that court between Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e
                                                                                the procedure provided for by those articles before taking action
Electrónica L da and Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos
                                                                                for post-clearance recovery of import duties.
Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa, third
party: Ministério Público, on the interpretation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and on
the validity of a Commission decision, the Court (Fifth                     (1 ) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
er, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-489/10: Action brought on 8 October 2010 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/40

         Action brought on 8 October 2010 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council
   (Case T-489/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/73
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran), Bushehr Shipping Co. Ltd (Valetta, Malta), Cisco Shipping Company Limited (Seoul, South Korea), Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran, Iran), Irano Misr Shipping Co. (Tehran, Iran), Irinvestship Ltd (London, United Kingdom), IRISL (Malta) Ltd (Sliema, Malta), IRISL Club (Tehran, Iran), IRISL Europe GmbH (Hamburg) (Hamburg, Germany), IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co. (Tehran, Iran), IRISL Multimodal Transport Company (Tehran, Iran), ISI Maritime Ltd (Malta) (Valletta, Malta), Khazer Shipping Lines (Bandar Anzali) (Gilan, Iran), Leadmarine (Singapore), Marble Shipping Ltd (Malta) (Sliema, Malta), Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran, Iran), Shipping Computer Services Co. (SCSCOL) (Tehran, Iran), Soroush Saramin Asatir (SSA) (Tehran, Iran), South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd (Tehran, Iran), Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Randolph, M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (2) in so far as those measures relate to the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicants, shipping companies based in Iran, United Kingdom, Malta, Germany, Singapore and South Korea, seek the partial annulment of Council implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as they are included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The applicants put forward the four pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicants argue that the contested measures were adopted in violation of the applicants’ rights of defence and their right to effective judicial protection since they provide no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze their assets was based, or for enabling them to comment meaningfully on that evidence. Furthermore, the applicants submit that the reasons contained in the regulation and in the decision contain general, unsupported, vague allegations of conduct relating to only two of the applicants. In respect of the other applicants, no evidence or information is given other that alleged an unspecified connection with the first applicant. In the applicants’ view, the Council has not given sufficient information to enable them effectively to make known their views in response, which does not permit a Court to assess whether the Council’s decision and assessment was well founded and based on compelling evidence.
   Second, the applicants contend that the Council failed to provide sufficient reasons for their inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of actual and specific reasons justifying its decision, including the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicants provided support for nuclear proliferation.
   Third, the applicants claim that the contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and freedom to conduct their business. The assets freezing measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on their fundamental rights. The applicants submit that their inclusion is not rationally connected with the objective of the contested regulation and decision, since the allegations against the applicants do not relate to nuclear proliferation. In any event, the Council has not demonstrated that a total asset freeze is the least onerous mean of ensuring such an objective, nor that the very significant harm to the applicants is justified and proportionate.
   Fourth, the applicants argue that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that the designation criteria in the contested regulation and the contested decision were satisfied in relation to the applicants. None of the allegations against any of the applicants relates to nuclear proliferation or weaponry. A simple assertion that some of the applicants are owned or controlled by or the agents of the first applicant is insufficient to meet criteria. Therefore, in the applicants’ opinion the Council has failed to evaluate the factual position.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39


title: Action brought on 11 May 1998 by Luciano Mammarella against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-74/98)

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/45
Action brought on 11 May 1998 by Luciano Mammarella                terms of insurance cover. The Commission thereupon
   against the Commission of the European Communities              offered and agreed to a financial settlement in respect of
                       (Case T-74/98)                              the various claims made by the applicant in his pleadings.
                        (98/C 209/92)
                                                                   With the passage of time, the applicant's condition
                                                                   resulting from the accident sustained in 1962 (classed as
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     9Ð10 % invalidity) seriously deteriorated, the degree of
                                                                   invalidity rising to 20 % which, under the common Rules
                                                                   on insurance against the risk of accident, triggers the right
An action against the Commission of the European                   to a review. Accordingly, the applicant asked the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  administration to apply Article 22 of those Rules in his
Instance of the European Communities on 11 May 1998                case. The implied refusal of that request led him to bring
by Luciano Mammarella, represented by Giuseppe                     the present proceedings.
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.                                                     In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Ð Infringement of Article 73(2)(c) of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations and Article 22 of the Rules, in so far as
                                                                       the initial relationship between the applicant and the
Ð confirm that the relationship between the Commission
                                                                       Commission cannot be classed as a works contract, for
    and the applicant during the period from 1962 to
                                                                       the purposes of Italian private law, but must be
    1964 was an employment relationship, subject at the
                                                                       recognised as a contract of employment. The
    very least to the employment conditions laid down for
                                                                       applicant's duties could not be governed by a contract
    temporary staff,
                                                                       of the kind provided for local staff since they were not
                                                                       manual or service duties' within the meaning of
Ð annul the Commission's refusal to grant the applicant                Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
    insurance cover in respect of accident and the                     Servants, but rather the kind of duties performed by a
    aggravation of any consequent invalidity,                          member of the scientific and technical staff or similar.
Ð declare that the applicant is due damages equivalent to          Ð Breach of the principle of non-discrimination and of
    the amount provided for in the case of 20 %                        the duty to have regard for the applicant's welfare. On
    permanent invalidity as a result of accident,                      that point, the applicant maintains that his unlawful
                                                                       classification led to a lack of insurance cover in the
                                                                       event of the invalidity which was determined at the
    and, in any event,                                                 time and which has deteriorated now that he is an
                                                                       official of the Commission. This is clear evidence of
                                                                       discrimination, given his rightful insurance situation
Ð award the applicant costs.                                           and that of all his colleagues.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, who is an official on the scientific and
technical staff of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra
contests the administration's decision to regard the work                   Removal from the register of T-153/94 (1)
performed by him between 1962 and 1964 as that of an                                       (98/C 209/93)
outside contractor, on the basis of contracts which were
systematically renewed. Although such agreements had the
appearance of works contracts, in the applicant's view                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
they amounted to a genuine and proper contract of
employment in so far as the detailed rules for their
implementation disclose all the essential characteristics:         By order of 4 May 1998 the President of the Fourth
continuous service, compliance with working hours,                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
obedience to instructions from superiors, employee status,         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
fixed remuneration and positioning within the Centre's             Case T-153/94: Pell Nederland B.V. and Internationale
organisational hierarchy.                                          Controle Maatschappij I.C.M. BV. v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
On that basis, the applicant brought judicial proceedings          (1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.
on 18 January 1975 under Article 1 of Italian Law No 533
of 11 August 1972 seeking regularisation of the service
provided during the period specified above, particularly in


title: Case C-257/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 25 May 2010 — Försäkringskässan v Elisabeth Bergström

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 25 May 2010 — Försäkringskässan v Elisabeth Bergström
   (Case C-257/10)
   2010/C 195/22
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Regeringsrätten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Försäkringskässan

      Defendant: Elisabeth Bergström

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, (1) can a qualification period for family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare be completed in its entirety through employment and insurance in Switzerland?

               2.

               Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Articles 3(1) and 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, is income earned in Switzerland to be equated with domestic income in the determination of entitlement to family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare?

      (1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.


title: Case T-318/10: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2012 — Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano and Others v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/19

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2012 — Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano and Others v Commission
   (Case T-318/10) (1)

   2012/C 184/38
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Eugénio Branco Lda against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-194/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/39
— order the Commission and the Council jointly and                       having contributed to two training programmes
     severally to pay the costs .                                        organized by the applicant and approved by the
                                                                         European Commission ( files 870302 P3 and
                                                                         870301 PI ), the Commission having been called on to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      adopt such a decision by written request from the
                                                                         applicant dated 27 February 1997, received by the
                                                                         Commission on 3 March 1997,
In 1993 the applicant, a milk producer and the holder of a
special reference quantity within the meaning of the
Community rules, applied, as a participant in the EC non            — declare that the Commission is under a legal
marketing/conversion scheme, to the then Federal Office                  obligation to give a decision on the application for
for Food and Agriculture for compensation under Council                  payment of the balance pursuant to Article 6 ( 1 ) of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 . The Federal Office, acting               Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 of 17 October
on behalf of and on account of the Council and the                       1983 and the first paragraph of Article 124 of the EC
Commission, communicated to the applicant an offer of                    Treaty,
compensation. By his claim, the applicant seeks the
payment to him of that compensation sum. He maintains
that a binding agreement was concluded between him and               — declare that the Commission's failure to adopt that
the Commission for the payment of that sum. Even if it is                decision infringes Article 6 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation
denied that any agreement was concluded, the applicant                   and the first paragraph of Article 124 of the EC
claims that he is entitled to receive payment, if only on the            Treaty,
ground that, as a result of delay in the allocation of the
milk reference quantity, he has suffered actual loss                 — find that Article 6 ( 1 ) of the said regulation and the
equivalent to at least the sum claimed. The compensation                 first paragraph of Article 124 of the EC Treaty have
period relating to the applicant, as a SLOM-II producer,                 been infringed by the Commission as a result of the
did not expire until 15 June 1991 , since the applicant was              said failure to act,
not allocated his reference quantity until 1991 .
Consequently, as a participant in the EC non-marketing
scheme, he is entitled to claim compensation for the loss            — order the Commission to pay the costs .
of income suffered by him as a result of the fact that he
produced no milk during the period from 22 July 1987 to
15 June 1991 .                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
                                                                     Commission has exclusive competence to decide on
                                                                     applications for the payment of balances under Article 6(1 )
                                                                     of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 of 17 October
                                                                     1983 .
Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Eugenio Branco Lda
      against Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-194/97)                             It follows that it is the Commission which assumes legal
                                                                     responsibility for the decision vis-a-vis the beneficiary of
                          ( 97/C 252/82 )                            the contribution from the ESF.
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     The Commission is thus under a legal obligation to give a
                                                                     decision on the application for payment of the balance
                                                                     pursuant to Article 6 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation.
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance on 30 June 1997 by Eugenio Branco Lda,                     The omission or failure to adopt such a decision
 Sociedade Comercial por Quotas de Responsabilidade                  approving or rejecting the application for payment of the
 Limitada, whose registered office is at 9 Rua Rodrigo da            balance infringes Article 6 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation and
 Fonseca , Lisbon, represented by Dr Bolota Belchior,                the first paragraph of Article 124 of the EC Treaty.
 practising in Vila Nova de Gaia, a member of the Oporto
 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               After the formal request made by the applicant to the
 Chambers of Dr Jacques Schroder, Faltz 8c Associes, 6               Commission, two months passed without the latter having
 Rue Heine .
                                                                     adopted the measure required of it under the
                                                                     abovementioned provisions .
 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
 should :
                                                                     The present proceedings have thus been instituted so that
                                                                     the Commission may be declared to be in breach of the
                                                                     Treaty for failure to act.
 — establish the Commission's failure to adopt a decision
      approving the application for payment of the balance
      of financing from the European Social Fund, the Fund


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 June 1997 in the case of AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry (Case C-237/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 252/21
the 0stre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was                              member comparable to children of the family, to be
received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1997, for a                               regarded as accommodation referred to in Article
preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet                                 2 ( l)(b)?
( Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs) v. Aktieselskabet
Forsikringsselskabet Codan, a limited-liability insurance                  2.2 . Are the training of the student and his parents, the
company, on the following question:                                                 selecting of the host family and the school in the host
                                                                                country, and the preparation of documentation
Must Article 12 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC                         relating to the country to be regarded as other tourist
of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of                         services referred to in Article 2 ( 1 ) ( c)?
capital H be construed as authorizing duty to be charged
on the transfer of shares, irrespective of whether the                     ( 1 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 59 .
company which issued those shares is admitted to trade on
a Stock Exchange and irrespective of whether the share
transfer is effected through the Stock Exchange or directly
between the transferor and the acquiring party ?
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
                                                                           Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-238/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/43
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 June 1997 in                  on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       the case of AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry                   Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
                         ( Case C-237/97 )                                 Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal
                           ( 97/C 252/42 )                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 June
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June                  1 . declare that, by not adjusting the Agreement between
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of AFS                                 Spain and Tunisia (') so as to give access to cargo
 Intercultural Programs Finland ry on the following                                shares by Community nationals or by not
 questions:                                                                        communicating such adjustments, the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3
 1.     Does a student exchange journey of a duration of                           and 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 ( 2), and
        about six months or a year, the purpose of which is
        not travel or tourism but attending school in a                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
        foreign country and getting to know its people and
        culture by living in a local family as a family member              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        without payment, fall wholly or partly within
        the scope of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 30                     Under Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86, cargo
        June 1990 on package travel, package holidays                       sharing agreements contained in existing bilateral
        and package tours ( ! )? Are characteristics which                  agreements are to be phased out or adjusted . The
        emphasize the non-commercial nature of the                          provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of the Agreement
        organization of the journey, such as the fact that a                between Spain and Tunisia constitute cargo agreements
        participant has to pay only part of the travel costs                and are thus subject to that requirement. Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
        himself, that the journeys are organized in                         of the Regulation provides for an adjustment period
        cooperation between public-interest associations of                 ending on 1 January 1993 . With reference to Article
        different countries and are largely based on voluntary              4 ( 1 ) ( a ), the Commission notes that Spain did not accede
                                                                            to the United Nations              Code       of Conduct for Liner
        work, and that the journeys are supported by State
        cultural funds, of relevance for whether a student                  Conferences until 3 February 1994 . Regulation ( EEC )
        exchange journey falls within the scope of the                      No 4055/86 does not merely provide that Member States
        Package Travel Directive ?                                          are to request non-member countries to accept adjustment
                                                                            of such agreements: if there is no acceptance or even
  2.    If the student exchange journeys described above fall               formal acknowledgment of receipt of such a request, the
                                                                             agreements may be denounced ( such denouncement is
        within the general scope of the Package Travel
        Directive, an answer is also sought to the following                provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement with Tunisia ).
        questions concerning the detailed interpretation of
        Article 2 of that Directive :                                        (') Agreement on carriage by sea , Boletm Oficial del Estado,
                                                                                1986 , p. 899 .
                                                                             ( 2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
  2.1 . Is long-term accommodation without payment,
        whose essence is living in a family as a family


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case C-172/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division): The Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. First National Bank of Chicago (Sixth VAT Directive - Scope - Foreign exchange transactions)

text:
C 299/4              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.9.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    of the supplier of the services over a given period of
                                                                       time.
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 14 July 1998                            (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
                                                                  (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
in Case C-172/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division): The Commissioners of Customs and
        Excise v. First National Bank of Chicago (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive Ð Scope Ð Foreign exchange
                         transactions)                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        (98/C 299/05)
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
                                                                  in Case C-385/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                  the Amtsgericht Aachen): criminal proceedings against
               (Language of the case: English)                                       Hermann Josef Goerres (1)
                                                                  (Approximation of laws Ð Labelling and presentation of
                                                                  foodstuffs Ð Directive 79/112/EEC Ð Consumer
                                                                                protection Ð Language)
In Case C-172/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice of                                         (98/C 299/06)
England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between The Commissioners of Customs and Excise                             (Language of the case: German)
and First National Bank of Chicago Ð on the
interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common                           published in the European Court Reports)
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2)
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de          In Case C-385/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; C. O.         of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht Aachen for a
Lenz, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on         court against Hermann Josef Goerres, on the
14 July 1998 in which it ruled:                                   interpretation of Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/
                                                                  EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
                                                                  laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                  presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the
1. transactions between parties for the purchase by one           ultimate consumer (2) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
    party of an agreed amount in one currency against the         composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
    sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in          Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-
    another currency, both such amounts being deliverable         P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
    on the same value date, and in respect of which               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
    transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally,         given a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
    electronically or in writing) the currencies involved,
    the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and
    sold, which party will purchase which currency and            1. Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
    the value date, constitute supplies of services effected           18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws
    for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of            of the Member States relating to the labelling,
    the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May                 presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
    1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                the ultimate consumer does not preclude national
    States relating to turnover taxes Ð common system of               legislation which, as regards language requirements,
    value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;                      prescribes the use of a specific language for the
                                                                       labelling of foodstuffs but which also permits, as an
                                                                       alternative, the use of another language easily
                                                                       understood by purchasers;
2. Article 11A(1)(a) of the sixth Directive must be
    construed as meaning that, in foreign exchange                2. all the compulsory particulars specified in Directive
    transactions in which no fees or commission are                    79/112/EEC must appear on the labelling either in a
    calculated with regard to certain specific transactions,           language easily understood by consumers of the State
    the taxable amount is the net result of the transactions           or the region in question, or by means of other


title: Case C-417/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 July 2013 — ÖBB Personenverkehr AG v Gotthard Starjakob

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 July 2013 — ÖBB Personenverkehr AG v Gotthard Starjakob
   (Case C-417/13)
   2013/C 325/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

      Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Gotthard Starjakob

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Articles 7(1), 16 and 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as meaning:

                           (a)

                           that an employee for whom the employer initially sets an incorrect increment reference date based on an age-discriminatory accreditation of previous periods of service as prescribed by law is in any event entitled to payment of the difference in salary based on the non-discriminatory increment reference date,

                           (b)

                           or that the Member State has the option of eliminating the age-based discrimination by way of a non-discriminatory accreditation of previous periods of service even without financial compensation (by setting a new increment reference date and at the same time extending the period for advancement to the next salary step), in particular where such a solution, having a neutral effect on pay, is intended to preserve the employer’s liquidity and avoid unreasonable expense resulting from recalculation?

               2.

               If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative:
               May the legislature:

                           (a)

                           also introduce such non-discriminatory accreditation of previous periods of service retroactively (specifically by way of the promulgated Law of 27 December 2011, BGBl I 2011/129, retroactive as from 1 January 2004) or

                           (b)

                           does such accreditation take effect only from the point in time at which the new accreditation and incremental advancement rules are enacted or promulgated?

               3.

               If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in conjunction with Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning:

                           (a)

                           that a legislative rule which provides for a longer period for incremental advancement for employment at the start of a career, thereby making it more difficult to advance to the next salary step, constitutes an indirect difference in treatment based on age,

                           (b)

                           and, if such is the case, that such a rule is appropriate and necessary in the light of the limited professional experience at the start of a career?

               4.

               If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative:
               Are Article 7(1) and Article 8(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1), of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the maintenance of an old, age-discriminatory rule simply in order to protect an employee from being disadvantaged in terms of income by a new, non-discriminatory rule (salary safeguard clause) is permissible and justified in order to preserve existing rights and legitimate expectations?

               5.

               If Question 1(b) and Question 3(b) are answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           May the legislature provide that the employee has a duty (or obligation) to cooperate for the purpose of establishing the accreditable previous periods of service and make transfer to the new accreditation and incremental advancement system dependent on fulfilment of that obligation?

                           (b)

                           Can an employee who fails to cooperate as may reasonably be expected in setting the new increment reference date under the new, non-discriminatory accreditation and incremental advancement system, and who therefore deliberately does not avail himself of the non-discriminatory rule (remaining of his own volition under the old, age-discriminatory accreditation and advancement system), invoke age discrimination under the old system, or does his remaining under the old, discriminatory system simply in order to be able to bring monetary claims constitute an abuse of rights?

               6.

               If Question 1(a) or Questions 1(b) and 2(b) are answered in the affirmative:
               Does the EU-law principle of effectiveness under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights und Article 19(1) TEU require that the period of limitation for claims founded in EU law cannot start to run until the legal position has been conclusively clarified by the pronouncement of a relevant decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

               7.

               If Question 1(a) or Questions 1(b) and 2(b) are answered in the affirmative:
               Does the EU-law principle of equivalence require that a restriction, provided for in national law, of the period of limitation for bringing claims under a new accreditation and incremental advancement system (Paragraph 53a(5) of the Bundesbahngesetz (Austrian Law on Federal Railways)) must be extended to claims for differences in pay resulting from an old system involving age discrimination?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-513/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 13 November 2012 — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany), lodged on 13 November 2012 — Aslihan Nazli Ayalti v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-513/12)
   2013/C 63/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aslihan Nazli Ayalti

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (AP) and/or Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 (Decision No 1/80) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to make himself or herself understood, in a basic way, in the German language?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative: does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case T-211/11: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/20

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case T-211/11) (1)

   2012/C 200/42
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case T-426/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Sugar — Processing of citrus fruits — Milk — Arable crops — Flat-rate financial correction — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — No error of assessment)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-426/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Sugar - Processing of citrus fruits - Milk - Arable crops - Flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - No error of assessment)
   2012/C 366/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and F. Jimeno, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/582/EC of 8 July 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 186, p. 39), in so far as it excludes from Community financing EUR 174 704 912,66 of expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-299/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 June 2012 — GREEN — SWAN PHARMACEUTICALS CR, a.s. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 June 2012 — GREEN — SWAN PHARMACEUTICALS CR, a.s. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce
   (Case C-299/12)
   2012/C 273/09
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GREEN — SWAN PHARMACEUTICALS CR, a. s.

      Defendant: Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce (The Czech Agricultural and Food Inspection Authority)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the following health claim: ‘The preparation also contains calcium and Vitamin D3, which help to reduce a risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and fractures’, a reduction of disease risk claim within the meaning of Article 2(2)(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 (2) of 9 February 2010, even though it is not expressly implied in this claim that the consumption of that preparation would significantly reduce a risk factor in the development of disease mentioned?

               2.

               Does the concept of a trade mark or brand name within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, also include a commercial communication on the packaging of the product?

               3.

               Should the transitional provision in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, be interpreted to refer to (any) foods which existed prior to 1 January 2005, or to refer to foods to which a trade mark or brand name was affixed and which existed in that form before that date?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods; OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the list of nutrition claims (Text with EEA relevance); OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.


title: Case T-472/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Lundbeck v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and generic undertakings — Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Errors of law and of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Legal certainty — Fines)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Lundbeck v Commission
   (Case T-472/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and generic undertakings - Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Errors of law and of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Legal certainty - Fines))
   (2016/C 402/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark) and Lundbeck Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, and T. Kuhn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi and C. Vollrath, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin, T. Vecchi, C. Vollrath and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and M. Healy, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission’s costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case F-34/15: Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/25

         Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-34/15)
   (2015/C 178/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 April 2014 of the High Representative of the European Union, Vice-President of the European Commission, to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS);

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case T-172/13: Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (AFRICAN SIMBA)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/25

         Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (AFRICAN SIMBA)
   (Case T-172/13)
   2013/C 141/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth-Stadeln, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 January 2013 in Case 157/2012-4 and dismiss the opposition in its entirety as a result of a lack of similarity between the goods and/or signs and grant registration of the Community trade mark ‘AFRICAN SIMBA’ (application No 7 5 4175) in the form applied for;

               —

               order OHIM and — in the case of written intervention — the opponent to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARFICAN SIMBA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 534 175

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘Simba’, and international word mark ‘SIMBA’ for goods in Class 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-619/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-364/13: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v EUIPO

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/7

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-364/13: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v EUIPO
   (Case C-619/15 P)
   (2016/C 326/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (represented by: B. Szczepaniak, radca prawny)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 21 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-86/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain) — Marta León Medialdea v Ayuntamiento de Huetor Vega (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Clause 3.1 — Definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ — Clause 5. 1 — Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Penalties — Conversion of temporary contracts into non-permanent contracts of an indefinite duration — Right to compensation)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/3

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain) — Marta León Medialdea v Ayuntamiento de Huetor Vega
   (Case C-86/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - Clause 3.1 - Definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ - Clause 5. 1 - Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Penalties - Conversion of temporary contracts into non-permanent contracts of an indefinite duration - Right to compensation))
   (2015/C 127/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marta León Medialdea

      Defendants: Ayuntamiento de Huetor Vega

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Clauses 2 and 3.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed 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 meaning that a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within the scope of that framework agreement in so far as that worker is bound to his or her employer by fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of those clauses.

               2.

               The framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which contains no effective measures for penalising abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of that framework agreement, resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts by a public sector employer, where there is no effective measure in the internal legal order for penalising such abuse.

               3.

               It is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with the legislation, collective agreements and/or national practice, what the nature of the compensation granted to a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, should be in order for that compensation to constitute a sufficiently effective measure to penalise the abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work.
               It is also for the referring court, should it be necessary, to give the relevant provisions of domestic law an interpretation which is, so far as possible, consistent with EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-386/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2017 — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2017 — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu
   (Case C-386/17)
   (2017/C 338/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Stefano Liberato

      Respondent: Luminita Luisa Grigorescu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does an infringement of the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 19(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (1) affect only the determination of jurisdiction, with the consequent application of Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 or, on the contrary, may it constitute a ground for withholding recognition, in the Member State whose court has been seised first, of a judicial ruling made in the Member State whose court has been seised at a later stage, in the light of procedural public policy, having regard to the fact that Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 refers only to the rules determining jurisdiction contained in Articles 3 to 14 of that regulation and not to the subsequent Article 19 thereof?

               2.

               Does the interpretation of Article 19 of Regulation No 2201/2003, seen only as a test for the conferral of jurisdiction, conflict with the EU-law concept of lis pendens and with the function and purpose of that provision, which is intended to lay down a set of binding rules, reflecting procedural public policy, thereby guaranteeing the creation of a common area characterised by reciprocal procedural trust and fairness between the Member States, within which the automatic recognition and free movement of judicial decisions may operate?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case T-396/15: Action brought on 22 July 2015 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/67

         Action brought on 22 July 2015 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)
   (Case T-396/15)
   (2015/C 302/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: web2get GmbH & Co. KG (Dülmen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of an articulated stirrup) — Community trade mark No 1 599 620

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 520/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject web2get GmbH & Co. KG’s application for a declaration that the applicant’s Community trade mark No 1 599 620 is invalid;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and (2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 77(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-158/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (Freedom of movement for persons — Student who is a national of one Member State and goes to another Member State to follow a training course — Student maintenance grant — Citizenship of the Union — Article 12 EC — Legal certainty)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep
   (Case C-158/07) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Student who is a national of one Member State and goes to another Member State to follow a training course - Student maintenance grant - Citizenship of the Union - Article 12 EC - Legal certainty)
   (2009/C 6/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Centrale Raad van Beroep
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jacqueline Förster

      Defendant: Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 18 EC, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), and Article 3 of Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — Student who is a national of one Member State and goes to another Member State to follow a training course, at the same time working as an employed person in the second Member State but who has, meanwhile, ceased that employment.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A student in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State in order to obtain a maintenance grant.

               2.

               A student who is a national of a Member State and travels to another Member State to study there can rely on the first paragraph of Article 12 EC in order to obtain a maintenance grant where he or she has resided for a certain duration in the host Member State. The first paragraph of Article 12 EC does not preclude the application to nationals of other Member States of a requirement of five years' prior residence.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, does not preclude the application of a residence requirement which makes the right of students from other Member States to a maintenance grant subject to the completion of periods of residence which occurred prior to the introduction of that requirement.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-23/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria (Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) — Alleged violation of the right to respect for human dignity — Effective judicial protection — Right of access to a court)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria
   (Case C-23/12) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Alleged violation of the right to respect for human dignity - Effective judicial protection - Right of access to a court)
   2013/C 63/09
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Party to the main proceedings

   proceedings brought by Mohamad Zakaria

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — Right of appeal of third country nationals in relation to a refusal of entry — Action seeking to have declared unlawful the conduct of border officials during the procedure to authorise the crossing of an external border — Compensation for the non-material harm incurred as a result of such unlawful conduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) obliges Member States to establish a means of obtaining redress only against decisions to refuse entry.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case T-135/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — GfK AG v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Online Bus — Earlier figurative trade mark composed of the word  BUS  and a figure made up of three interlaced triangles — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — GfK AG v OHIM
   (Case T-135/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Online Bus - Earlier figurative trade mark composed of the word ‘BUS’ and a figure made up of three interlaced triangles - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2006/C 22/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): GfK AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Brückmann and R. Lange, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: T. Lorenzo Eichenberg, Agent)

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: BUS — Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs GmbH, (Munich, Germany)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2004 (Case R 327/2003-1), relating to opposition proceedings brought by the owner of a German figurative mark, composed of the word 'BUS' and a figure made up of three interlaced triangles, against the registration of the Community word mark Online Bus for services in Class 35
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Case T-259/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Commission v Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari and Gessa (Arbitration clause — Agreement entered into as part of support for European discussion projects organised by non-governmental organisations for 2003 — Action brought against the head of an association — No jurisdiction — Failure to implement the agreement — Repayment of sums advanced)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Commission v Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari and Gessa
   (Case T-259/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Agreement entered into as part of support for European discussion projects organised by non-governmental organisations for 2003 - Action brought against the head of an association - No jurisdiction - Failure to implement the agreement - Repayment of sums advanced)
   2011/C 38/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and N. Bambara, agents, and by M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Defendant: Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari (Cagliari, Italy) (represented initially by S. Diana, then by P. Aureli, lawyers); and Alberto Gessa (Cagliari, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 238 EC on the basis of an arbitration clause seeking an order that Arci Nuova Associazione Comitato di Cagliari and Alberto Gessa, in a personal capacity and jointly and severally, should repay an advance paid by the Commission under the agreement 2003-1550/001-001, together with late payment interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action so far as brought against Mr Alberto Gessa;

               2.

               orders Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari to repay to the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 15 675, together with late payment interest at the rate of 7,32 % from 20 May 2007 until full payment of the debt;

               3.

               orders Arci Nuova associazione comitato di Cagliari to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220 of 12.9.2009.


title: Case F-69/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/35

         Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission
   (Case F-69/06)
   (2006/C 190/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Tommy Andersson (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the individual decisions rejecting the applicants' requests that the Appointing Authority adopt transitional measures in order to ensure, in the context of the 2005 and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and their acquired rights;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants put forward identical pleas to those put forward in Case F-47/06 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.07.2006, p. 25.


title: Case T-140/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/62

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-140/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/107)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2001 in Case C-379/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Pensionskasse für die Angestellten der Barmer Ersatzkasse VVaG v Hans Menauer (Equal pay for men and women — Occupational pensions — Pension funds entrusted with carrying out the employer's obligation as regards payment of a supplementary pension — Survivor's pension)

text:
8.12.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/3
ley, and subsequently L.A. Farrell) — application for a declar-             (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ation that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to                before that court between Pensionskasse für die Angestellten
ensure the correct implementation of Articles 2(d), 11 and 12               der Barmer Ersatzkasse VVaG and Hans Menauer — the
of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on                      interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to
the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative               120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC
provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of                 to 143 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes                 F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
(OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1) and by failing to provide for an adequate             J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tiz-
system of penalties for non-compliance with the requirements                zano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
of Directive 86/609/EEC, Ireland has failed to comply with the              judgment on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
Directive, in particular Article 25 thereof, and has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular Article 5         Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
thereof (now Article 10 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,                interpreted to the effect that bodies such as German pension
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-                   funds (‘Pensionskassen’) entrusted with providing benefits under an
mermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 occupational pension scheme are required to ensure equal treatment
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October 2001,                 between men and women, even if the employees discriminated against
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  on the basis of sex have, as against those directly liable, namely their
                                                                            employers in their capacity as parties to their employment contracts,
1.     By failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure the         a protected right in the event of insolvency that excludes all
       correct implementation of Articles 2(d), 11 and 12 of                discrimination.
       Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the
       approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of          (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
       and by failing to provide for an adequate system of penalties for
       non-compliance with the requirements of Directive
       86/609/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       the Directive, in particular Article 25 thereof, and under the
       EC Treaty, in particular Article 5 thereof (now Article 10 EC);
2.     Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2001
                                                                            in Joined Cases C-396/99 and C-397/99: Commission of
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                          of 9 October 2001                                 Directives 90/388/EEC and 96/2/EC — Market for telecom-
                                                                            munications services — Mobile and personal communi-
in Case C-379/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                                                       cations)
from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Pensionskasse für die
Angestellten der Barmer Ersatzkasse VVaG v Hans Menau-                                                 (2001/C 348/06)
                                  er (1)
(Equal pay for men and women — Occupational pensions                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
— Pension funds entrusted with carrying out the employer’s
obligation as regards payment of a supplementary pension —                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          Survivor’s pension)                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                            (2001/C 348/05)
                     (Language of the case: German)                         In Joined Cases C-396/99 and C-397/99: Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: B. Doherty and D. Triantafyl-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      lou) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: N. Dafniou and S. Chala) —
                     in the European Court Reports)                         application for a declaration that, by failing to take, within the
                                                                            prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                            Article 2(1) (Case C-396/99) and Article 2(2) (Case C-397/99)
In Case C-379/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  of Commission Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996
EC from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court)                     amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and


No C 210/24          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              20 . 7 . 96
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-157/95 : the European                  T-233/95 , T v. European Parliament.
Association of Mozzarella Manufacturers, Golden Food
Products Limited, Carbery Milk Products Ltd, Dansco                (>) OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
Dairy Products Ltd and Express Foods ( Northern Ireland )
Limited v. Commission of the European Communities .
(M OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case T-219/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/56 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-233/95 ( )                By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Fifth
                                                                   Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                        ( 96/C 210/55 )
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case T-219/95 , Marie-Thérèse
               (Language of the case: Greek)                       Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities .
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (!) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case T-279/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/30

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission
   (Case T-279/14)
   2014/C 223/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sabic Polyolefine GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU due to erroneous classification of the special compensation regime

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the opening decision infringes Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) did not constitute an allocation of State resources and the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users did not constitute a waiver of State resources.

                           —

                           The applicant states, in this context, that the Commission based its examination on new delimiting parameters which are incompatible with the principles of previous case-law. In particular, the Commission completely waived the criterion of the specific power of disposal of State authorities, which according to settled case-law is necessary for the classification as State resources, and deemed it to be sufficient for the State legislature to affect cash flows between private parties and for the compliance by the private parties with the legal requirements to be monitored by regulatory authorities.

                           —

                           In addition, the Commission is bound by its decision by which it did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources, and therefore erred in law by classifying the 2012 EEG as a new, unlawfully implemented aid scheme.

                           —

                           In addition, the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the 2012 EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 due to failure to propose appropriate measures

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that, when examining the 2012 EEG, the Commission should in any event have applied the procedure for existing aid in accordance with Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 17-19 of Regulation No 659/1999 and should have proposed appropriate measures to Germany before opening the formal investigation procedure instead of exposing market participants to considerable economic risks due to the classification of the 2012 EEG as new, non-notified aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard

                           —

                           The applicant argues also that the Commission should have consulted it in any event before adopting a decision with such serious legal effects.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Insufficient reasoning

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant claims that the opening decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in the essential passages.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.