title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2003 in Case C-294/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna): Granarolo SpA v Comune di Bologna (Agriculture — Health rules for the production and placing on the market of heat-treated milk — Free movement of goods — National law imposing a use-by date for high-temperature pasteurised milk)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 7/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products, as amended by
                                                                             Council Directive 94/71/EC of 13 December 1994, and Articles 28
                                                                             EC And 30 EC preclude national legislation such as that at issue in
                                                                             the main proceedings, which requires a use-by date of four days after
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    preparation for high-temperature pasteurised milk.
                      of 13 November 2003                                    (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
in Case C-294/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale civile di Bologna): Granarolo SpA v Comune
                            di Bologna (1)
(Agriculture — Health rules for the production and placing
on the market of heat-treated milk — Free movement of                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
goods — National law imposing a use-by date for high-
                  temperature pasteurised milk)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2004/C 7/13)                                                           of 20 November 2003
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          in Case C-296/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                   in the European Court Reports)                            transpose Directive 90/220/EEC — Genetically modified
                                                                                organisms)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/14)
In Case C-294/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) for a preliminary                                  (Language of the case: French)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Granarolo SpA and Comune di Bologna, on the interpretation
of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the health rules for the production and placing on the market                                   in the European Court Reports)
of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products (OJ
1992 L 268, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 94/71/EC
of 13 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 368, p. 33), of Council
Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the                      In Case C-296/01, Commission of the European Communities
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 1979               (Agent: G. zur Hausen, assisted by M. van der Woude and V.
L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European                 Landes) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R.
Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 (OJ 1997                    Loosli-Surrans): Application for a declaration that, by failing
L 43, p. 21), and of Council Directive 89/396/EEC of 14 June                 to transpose correctly and fully Articles 5(1) to (4), 6(2) and
1989 on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a                  (5), 9(3), 11(1), (2), (3) and (6), 12(3) and (4) and 19(2), (3)
foodstuff belongs (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 21), the Court (Fifth                   and (4) of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of                       the deliberate release into the environment of genetically
the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                modified organisms (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), as amended by
P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,                      Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting to
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for                 technical progress for the second time Directive 90/220 (OJ
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 November 2003, in                  1997 L 169, p. 72), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
which it has ruled:                                                          obligations under that directive and Article 249 EC, the Court
                                                                             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
                                                                             the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric (Rappor-
                                                                             teur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the                  General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 Nov-
health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw             ember 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-357/04 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/6

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-357/04 P)
   (2004/C 284/13)
   An appeal against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi, represented by Salvatore Amato.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   uphold the appeal and annul the order of the Court of First Instance.
   Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant submits that, contrary to the decision of the Court of First Instance, his action brought on 18 December 2002 was not out of time.


title: Action brought on 14 February 1995 by Cembureau - Association Européenne du Ciment against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-26/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95           | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 101 /11
As regards the substance of the case, the applicant considers           (iii ) request the Court to make any measures of preliminary
that the contested Decision :                                                    enquiry that it may consider necessary.
— fails to show that it participated in an alleged agreement
      on non-transhipment to domestic markets,                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— further fails to show that it participated in any                     The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that the contested
      agreement or concerted practice relating to Greek                 decision has infringed the EC Treaty because :
      cement ,
                                                                        — the findings in the decision that the Applicant infringed
— further fails to show that the limited activities of the                    Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty are erroneous, being
      White Cement Committee were capable of constituting a                    based on a materially incorrect appreciation of the facts
      restriction of competition within the meaning of                         and vitiated by manifest errors of assessment,
      Article 85 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                        — the analysis of the application of Article 85 ( 1 ) to
In the alternative, the applicant applies for the reduction or                 associations of undertakings in the decision is flawed by
annulment of the fines imposed on it, asserting that those                     errors of law and inadequate reasoning.
fines :
                                                                        It considers, on the other hand, that the Commission has
— result in discriminatory treatment of the undertakings                infringed the applicant's right to be heard in the
      allegedly party to the agreement on non-transhipment to           administrative proceedings under Regulations ( EEC )
      domestic markets,
                                                                        No 17/92 and ( EEC ) No 99/63 , by failing to give it a full
                                                                        copy of the Statement of Objections and full access to the
— are wrongly based on certain factors found to be                      file .
      aggravating,
— fail to take into consideration the mitigating factors
      relating specifically to the applicant,
— impose, in the white cement sector, a pecuniary sanction
      on the applicant in respect of conduct which it adopted,
      with the approval of the Commission, in another                   Action brought on 15 February 1995 by Fédération de
      agreemeent and which cannot, therefore, be regarded as            l'Industrie Cimentière Belge asbl against the Commission of
      constituting, in its case, wilful or negligent infringement                           the European Communities
      of Article 85 .                                                                             ( Case T-30/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/28 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 14 February 1995 by Cembureau —                       An action against the Commission of the European
Association Européenne du Ciment against the Commission                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
                  of the European Communities                           Instance of the European Communities on 15 February
                           (Case T-26/95 )                              1995 by Fédération de l'Industrie Cimentière Belge asbl, the
                            ( 95/C 101 /27                              head office of which is in Brussels ( Belgium ), represented by
                                                                        Onno W. Brouwer and Frédéric P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                 (Language of the case: English)                        of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 14 February
1995 by Cembureau — Association Européenne du Ciment,                   — annul Articles 1 , 2, 5 , 8 and 9 of the Decision of the
represented by Julian Ellison with an address for service in                   Commission of 30 November 1994 relating to a
Luxembourg at the office of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue,                          proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
L-2011 Luxembourg.                                                             IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), inasmuch as
                                                                               Fédération de l'Industrie Cimentière Belge asbl is stated
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                   therein to have participated in agreements or concerted
                                                                               practices contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty and has
  (i ) annul the Commission's Decision in Cases IV/33.126                      been fined in that regard,
        and 33.322 — Cement, in so far as it affects
        Cembureau;                                                      — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                               the applicant by Article 9 ( 10 ) of the Decision,
 (ii) order the Commission to pay Cembureau's costs;
        and                                                             — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case C-95/06 P: Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2006 — Bausch & Lomb Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Biofarma SA

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2006 — Bausch & Lomb Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Biofarma SA
   (Case C-95/06 P) (1)

   (2007/C 82/55)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  13 September 2005  in Case C-176/03: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Articles 29 EU, 31(e) EU, 34 EU and 47 EU — Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA — Protection of the environment — Criminal penalties — Community competence — Legal basis — Article 175 EC)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 13 September 2005
   in Case C-176/03: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for annulment - Articles 29 EU, 31(e) EU, 34 EU and 47 EU - Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA - Protection of the environment - Criminal penalties - Community competence - Legal basis - Article 175 EC)
   (2005/C 315/03)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-176/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Petite, J. F. Pasquier and W. Bogensberger) supported by: European Parliament, (Agents: G. Garzón Clariana, H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Baas, and M. Gómez-Leal) v Council of the European Union (Agent: J.-C. Piris, J. Schutte and K. Michoel) supported by: Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and A. Dittrich), Hellenic Republic (Agents: E.-M. Mamouna and M. Tassopoulou), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and E. Puisais), Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, and P. Gallagher, E. Fitzsimons SC and E. Regan BL), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and C. Wissels), Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes and A. Fraga Pires), Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski), Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse, K. Wistrand and A. Falk), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. Jackson and R. Plender QC) — Application for annulment pursuant to Article 35 EU brought on 15 April 2003, — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič and J. Malenovský, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.


title: Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission (State aid — Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State — Tax exemptions — Decisions declaring aid schemes incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid out — Classification as new aid or as existing aid — Operating aid — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty — Decision initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02) (1)

   (State aid - Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State - Tax exemptions - Decisions declaring aid schemes incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid out - Classification as new aid or as existing aid - Operating aid - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty - Decision initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 256/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant in Cases T-30/01 and T-86/02: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (Spain) (represented by: M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers)

      Applicant in Cases T-31/01 and T-88/02: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (Spain) (represented by: M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers)

      Applicant in Cases T-32/01 and T-87/02: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (Spain) (represented by: M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially, in Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01, by: J. Flett, S. Pardo and J.L. Buendía Sierra and, in Cases T-86/02 to T-88/02, by: J.L. Buendía Sierra and F. Castillo de la Torre, and subsequently by Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants in Cases T-86/02 to T-88/02: Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (Spain), (represented by: M. Morales Isasi and I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, lawyers); and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, L. Ortiz Blanco and V. Sopeña Blanco, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja (Spain) (represented, in Cases T-86/02 and T-87/02, by: J.M. Criado Gámez and, in Case T-88/02, by I. Serrano Blanco, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application in Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 for annulment of the Commission decision of 28 November 2000 to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC in relation to the tax advantages in the form of corporation tax exemption for certain newly established firms granted by provisions adopted by the Diputación Foral de Álava, the Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and application in Cases T-86/02 to T-88/02 for annulment of Commission Decisions 2003/28/EC, 2003/86/EC and 2003/192/EC of 20 December 2001 on a State aid scheme in the form of corporation tax exemption implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava (T-86/02), Vizcaya (T-87/02) and Guipúzcoa (T-88/02) (OJ 2003 L 17, p. 20; OJ 2003 L 40, p. 11, and OJ 2003 L 77, p. 1, respectively).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the joinder of Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01, and T-86/02 to T-88/02 for the purposes of judgment.

               2.

               In Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01:

                           —

                           Declares there is no longer any need to adjudicate on those actions;

                           —

                           orders the Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya to bear their own costs, and to pay the costs of the Commission.

               3.

               In Cases T-86/02 to T-88/02:

                           —

                           Dismisses the actions;

                           —

                           orders the Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission and the Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja;

                           —

                           orders the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco and the Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 7.4.2001.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/1

         (2007/C 269/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

      OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

      OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-478/10: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Genetically modified food and feed — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/10

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-478/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/419/EU of 28 July 2010 renewing the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1), authorising foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of field maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Decision 2004/657/EC (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 11).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-428/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret) Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn v Skatteministeriet, and Skatteministeriet v Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exemptions — Leasing of immovable property — Letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles — Mooring berths for boats — Land storage sites for boats)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-428/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret) Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn v Skatteministeriet, and Skatteministeriet v Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13B(b) - Exemptions - Leasing of immovable property - Letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles - Mooring berths for boats - Land storage sites for boats)
   (2005/C 115/01)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-428/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 15 November 2002, received at the Court on 26 November 2002, in the proceedings Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn v Skatteministeriet, and Skatteministeriet v Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of letting of immovable property includes the letting of both water-based mooring berths for pleasure boats and land sites for storage of boats on port land.

               2.

               Article 13B(b)(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘vehicles’ includes boats.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.


title: Appeal brought on 28 November 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 28 September 1995 by the Fourth Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-95/94 between the Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs (Sytraval) and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic (Case C-367/95 P)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret, by a           Question 2
decision of that court of 22 November 1995 in the case of
Landbrugsministeriet, EC Direktoratet v. Steff-Houlberg              Do the Community law principles that follow from the
Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco Holding A/S and SMC of                case-law of the Court of Justice concerning reimbursement
                      31 December 1989                               of unduly-paid aid, according to which the interests of the
                                                                     Community are to be fully taken into account, preclude an
                        ( Case C-366/95                              exporter undertaking being considered to be in good faith,
                           96/C 16/ 19 )                             and thus not under an obligation to reimburse an amount of
                                                                     aid, if it is taken into consideration that the exporter
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               undertakings did not reserve the right by agreement with the
European Communities by a decision of the Hosteret                   producer to carry out their own checks at the place of
( Supreme Court, Denmark ) of 22 November 1995 , which               manufacture in order to ensure that the products were
was received at the Court Registry on 28 November 1995 ,             manufactured in accordance with the declaration that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landbrugsministeriet,        exporter would sign, when account is taken of the fact
EC-Direktoratet (Ministry of Agriculture's EC Department)            that:
v. Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco                     — the producer had export approval from the authority
Holding A/S and SMC of 31 December 1989 on the                            that made the payments,
following questions:
                                                                     — the exporter undertakings were trading undertakings
Question 1                                                                and the goods did not pass through them,
A. Do the Community law principles which result from the             — the exporter undertakings knew that the monitoring
     case-law of the Court of Justice concerning demands for              authority exercised day-to-day supervision at the place
                                                                          of manufacture, and
     reimbursement of sums unduly paid as aid, according to
     which the interests of the Community should be fully            — the price of finished products of equivalent type and
     taken into account, preclude national law from taking                description was the same from producers in Denmark
     into consideration, as criteria for excluding demands                and those abroad ?
     for reimbursement of unduly-paid aid:
                                                                     Question 3
     — the good faith of the aid recipients and thus the
          protection of legitimate expectations,                     May a third party, including an aid recipient, rely on
                                                                     possible negligence displayed by the monitoring authority
     — the fact that 5 to 10 years have elapsed since the            with the result that demands for reimbursement of refunds
          payment of the amounts of aid, and hence that it           already paid would be excluded on the basis of an overall
          would be particularly onerous for the aid recipients       assessment of the case ?
          to have to reimburse the aid now,
     — the reason for the undue payment of the aid being an
          exceptional circumstance in the form of serious            Appeal brought on 28 November 1995 by the Commission
          fraud and punishable offences on the part of a third       of the European Communities against the judgment
          party, and                                                 delivered on 28 September 1995 by the Fourth Chamber
                                                                     ( extended composition ) of the Court of First Instance of the
     — the fact that — as the exporter undertakings were             European Communities in Case T-95/94 between the
          aware — the monitoring authority exercised                 Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de
          day-to-day supervision at the place of manufacture,        fonds et valeurs ( Sytraval) and the Commission of
          without discovering/affecting the fraud,                   the European Communities, supported by thé French
                                                                                Republic
     — the fact that, over the whole period in which
          payments were made, the authority making the                                     Case C-367/95 P)
          payment was aware that the value of the monitoring                                  96/C 16/20 )
          system depended on the accuracy of the information
          supplied by the undertaking being monitored, but           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
          despite that fact omitted to ask to see recipes or the      1 995 by the Fourth Chamber (extended composition ) of the
          producer's accounts relating to the purchase of raw        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
          materials,                                                 Case T-95/94 between the Chambre syndicale nationale des
                                                                     entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
     where the underlying principle is that the same criteria        the Commission of the European Communities, supported
     apply in connection with demands for reimbursement              by the French Republic, was brought before the Court of
     of purely national amounts of aid ?                             Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 B.  Would the answer be the same if account were taken in           represented by Jean-Louis Dewost, Director-General of its
     national law of the fact that there were no other               Legal Service, and Jean-Paul Kepenne and Michel Nolin, of
     circumstances which should have given the exporter               its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
     undertakings grounds for doubting that the product               service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos GômeZ'de la
     qualified for refunds ?                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/ 10              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The appellant claims that the Court should :                             must Article 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning
                                                                         that it precludes the application of legislation of Member
— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First                 State A prohibiting an undertaking established in Member
      Instance of the European Communities on 28 September               State B from selling in Member State A a periodical
      1995 in Case T-95/94 (*) and take all the ensuing legal            produced in Member State B, where that periodical contains
      steps, and, in particular, refer the case back to the Court        prize puzzle competitions or games which are lawfully
      of First Instance for a decision on the merits,                    organized in Member State B ?
— order the applicants in the proceedings before the Court
      of First Instance to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Infringement of Community law:                                           Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección
                                                                         Octava, by orders of that court of 4 July 1995 , 13 September
                                                                         1995 and 15 November 1995 in the cases of Careda
— the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the                      SA, FEMARA and FACOMARE respectively against
      contested decision was a decision rejecting a complaint;           Administración General del Estado ( Ministerio de
      under Community law as it stands at present, that                                      Economía y Hacienda )
      category of decision does not exist in the field of State
      aid,                                                                       ( Cases C-3 70/95 , C-371/95 and C-372/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/22 )
— the Court of First Instance wrongly examined the
      statement of reasons in relation to the complainants and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the arguments and facts set out in their complaint; a              European Communities by orders of the Audiencia
      complainant who subsequently pleads, in the context of             Nacional (National High Court), Sala de lo
      an action for annulment, the inadequacy of the                     Contencioso-Administrativo ( Chamber for Contentious
      statement of reasons for a decision may only do so in the          Administrative Proceedings ), Sección Octava ( Eighth
      same capacity as any other applicant to whom the                   Section ) of 4 July 1995 , 13 September 1995 and
      decision is of direct and individual concern,                      15 November 1995 , which were received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 30 November 1995 , for preliminary rulings in
— the Court of First Instance carried out, in the guise of a             the cases of Careda SA, FEMARA ( Federación Nacional de
      review of the statement of reasons, a review of the error          Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar ) and
      of assessment, and imposed a new procedural                        FACOMARE (Asociación Española de Empresarios de
      obligation, namely an obligation to undertake an                   Máquinas Recreativas ) respectively against Administración
      exchange of views and arguments with the complainant.              General del Estado ( Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda ) on
      The grant to a complainant of a right of access to the             the following questions :
      documentation in a case in which there is no obligation
      to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 93 (2 ) of
                                                                         1.     does the concept of passing on the tax to the
      the EC Treaty constitutes an infringement of the
                                                                         consumer, within the meaning of the sixth Directive
      applicable rules on State aid.
                                                                         ( 77/388/EEC ) (*) of 17 May 1977 and of the rest of the
                                                                         Community legal order, and for determining the concept of
( ] ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p . 19 .                            turnover tax, require always and in every case the law
                                                                         concerning the tax in question to lay down expressly that the
                                                                         said tax may be passed on to the consumer or is it sufficient,
                                                                         on the other hand, if the tax can be deemed, on a reasonable
                                                                         interpretation of such law, to be actually included in the
                                                                         price paid by the consumer ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht               2 . May a tax which is levied as a fixed charge of a large
Wien by order of that court of 15 September 1995 in the case             amount on the total turnover or revenue generated and
of Vereinigte FamilaprefS Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs                 which takes account of such turnover, if it is ultimately paid
                 GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag
                                                                         by the consumer, be regarded as a turnover tax although
                          ( Case C-368/95 )                              there is no express record ( invoice ) of passing on the tax to
                             ( 96/C 16/21 )                              the consumer, the transactions in question being automatic,
                                                                         by the use of coins, and there being a price for use. As so
                                                                         framed, does it infringe Article 33 of the sixth Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 77/388/EEC ) on value added tax and is it therefore
European Communities by order of the Handelsgericht                      incompatible with that Directive ?
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 15 September 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 29 November
                                                                          0 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereinigte
Familaprefê Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v.
Heinrich Bauer Verlag on the following question:


C 71/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    20.3.2004
       Removal from the register of Case T-319/02 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-191/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/77)                                                            (2004/C 71/79)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                            (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the Second
                                                                          By order of 1 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
T-319/02: H.O. Sport Inc. v Office for the Harmonisation of
                                                                          Case T-191/03: Alexandre Tilgenkamp v Commission of the
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
                                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-180/03 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-296/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 71/78)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/80)
                  (Language of the Case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 4 December 2003 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of                      By order of 15 December 2003 the President of the Fourth
Case T-180/03: Auna Operadores de Telecomunicaciones S.A.                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
and Others v Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-296/03: Proteco srl v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Case C-426/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), lodged on 18 September 2012 — X; Other party: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), lodged on 18 September 2012 — X; Other party: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-426/12)
   2012/C 399/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Other party: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there dual use within the meaning of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC (1) in the case where coal (products within the CN codes 2701, 2702 and 2704) is used as heating fuel in a lime kiln, while the carbon dioxide generated in that lime kiln from the coal (and limestone) is used for the production of lime-kiln gas, which is subsequently used in, and is indispensable for, the purification of the raw juice obtained from sugar beet?

               2.

               Is there dual use within the meaning of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC in the case where coal (products within the CN codes 2701, 2702 and 2704) is used as heating fuel, while 66 % of the carbon dioxide generated during the heating and taken up by the lime-kiln gas is absorbed, during the subsequent purification referred to above, by earth foam, which is sold as lime fertiliser to the agricultural sector?

               3.

               In the event that there is dual use within the meaning of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC: having regard to the (literal) text of the opening words of Article 2(4) of Directive 2003/96/EC, is that directive not applicable, with the result that the appellant cannot rely (for the interpretation in national legislation of the concept of dual use as referred to in Article 20(e) Wbm (2)) on the direct effect of that directive?

               4.

               In the event that there is dual use within the meaning of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96/EC and the latter is (consequently) inapplicable: in the case of the levying of a tax such as the present fuel tax, does European Union law preclude a more restrictive interpretation of the concept of dual use under domestic law as compared with an interpretation in accordance with Directive 2003/96/EC?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

      (2)  Wet belastingen op milieugrondslag (Netherlands Law introducing taxes for the protection of the environment).


title: Case C-299/06: Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/24

         Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-299/06)
   (2006/C 212/41)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and N.Yerrell)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 14 January 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 9, 15.1.2003, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another Member State before the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71)

text:
C 84/18                     EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
(BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1246), employers of 10 or fewer workers                     Capitale (Judicial Board of the Brussels-Capital region)
from the duty to keep documents containing the results of a                   (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
risk assessment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                before that court between François De Coster and Collège des
fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty              bourgmestre et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort — on the
(now Articles 10 EC and 249 EC) and Articles 9(1)(a) and                      interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
10(3)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on                   amendment, Article 49 EC) and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC
the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                     Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55 EC) — the Court (Fifth
the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183                       Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
p. 1). the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr                    S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the                 and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 Nov-
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate                           ember 2001, in which it has ruled:
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                              Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
1.     Declares that, by failing to ensure that the obligation to be in       and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55
       possession of an assessment in documentary form of the risks to        EC) must be interpreted as preventing the application of a tax on
       safety and health at work, as laid down by Council Directive           satellite dishes such as that introduced by Articles 1 to 3 of the tax
       89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures             regulation adopted on 24 June 1997 by the municipal council of
       to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers          Watermael-Boitsfort.
       at work, applies to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all
       circumstances, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of that     (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       directive;
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                7 February 2002
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 29 November 2001                                 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensions-
                                                                                versicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (1)
in Case C-17/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale): François De Coster v Collège des bourgmestre                       (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
               et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (1)                         No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age
                                                                              insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Defination of a                         Member State before the entry into force of Regulation
national court or tribunal — Freedom to provide services —                                                 No 1408/71)
Municipal tax on satellite dishes — Restriction on the
    freedom to receive television programmes by satellite)                                                (2002/C 84/29)
                               (2002/C 84/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-28/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-17/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                  by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
from the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Liselotte
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/19
Kauer and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, on                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the interpretation of Article 94(1), (2) and (3) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                                        (Fifth Chamber)
self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                            22 January 2002
S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate                   in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-             the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l’Ordre des
trator, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it                              Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (1)
has ruled:
                                                                           (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and
                                                                           43 EC — National legislation restricting access to the
                                                                           profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or
Article 94(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June            professional qualification — Community national holding a
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed             diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families         on the host Member State when presented with an application
moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated            to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make
by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read              a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities
in conjunction, depending on the case, with Articles 8a, 48 and 52         certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and                 qualifications required by its national legislation)
43 EC), is to be interpreted as precluding application of a Member
State’s legislation under which child-raising periods completed in
another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic
                                                                                (2002/C 84/30)
Area of 2 May 1992 or in another Member State of the European
Union are not treated as substitute periods for the purposes of old-
age insurance unless
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     they were completed after the entry into force of that regulation    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      in the first State, and                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
—     the applicant receives, or received, for the children concerned,
      cash maternity allowances or equivalent allowances under the         In Case C-31/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      legislation of that same State,                                      by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between Conseil
                                                                           National de l’Ordre des Architectes and Nicolas Dreessen on
                                                                           the interpretation of Articles 10 EC and 43 EC, the Court (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
when such periods completed in national territory are treated as           S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and
substitute periods for the purposes of old-age insurance without any       C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
limitation in time or any other condition.                                 Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 22 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where a
                                                                           Community national applies to the competent authorities of a
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.                                                  Member State for authorisation to practise a profession, access to
                                                                           which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a
                                                                           diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical
                                                                           experience, those authorities are required to take into consideration
                                                                           all of the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                           qualifications of the person concerned, and his relevant experience, by
                                                                           comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and
                                                                           that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by


title: Case F-46/10: Action brought on 16 June 2010 — AD v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/41

         Action brought on 16 June 2010 — AD v Commission
   (Case F-46/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AD (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to grant the applicant the household allowance

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) on 13 November 2009 not to allocate to the applicant the household allowance provided for in Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               In any event, annul the decision taken by the PMO on 9 September 2009 not to allocate to the applicant the household allowance provided for in Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in so far as that ‘decision’ may be considered to adversely affect him;

               —

               In the alternative, should the Tribunal take the view that Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations permitted the authority authorised to conclude contracts (AACC) to refuse to allocate to the applicant the household allowance although it is impossible for the couple of which he is part to marry because their sexual orientation is rendered illegal by the national law to which his partner is subject, acknowledge that Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful in so far as it provides for a reference to the law of one of the Member States in assessing the possibility of access to marriage and, consequently, not apply that condition in the present case;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-83/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 February 2014  — CEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisa za zashtita ot diskiminatsia

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 February 2014 — CEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisa za zashtita ot diskiminatsia
   (Case C-83/14)
   2014/C 142/26
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD

      Defendant: Komisa za zashtita ot diskiminatsia

      Other parties to the proceedings: Komisa za energiyno i vodno regulirane, Anelia Georgieva Nikolova, in business as the shopkeeper ‘Anelia Nikolova-Rosa’

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘ethnic origin’ used in Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 (1) implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as covering a homogeneous group of Bulgarian citizens of Roma origin such as those living in the ‘Gizdova mahala’ district of the town of Dupnitsa?

               2.

               Does the expression ‘comparable situation’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43/EC apply to the circumstances of the present case, in which the commercial measuring instruments are positioned in Roma districts of the town at a height of between 6 and 7 metres whereas in other districts not densely populated by Roma they are generally positioned lower than 2 metres above ground?

               3.

               Is Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 to be interpreted so that the positioning of commercial measuring instruments in Roma districts of town at a height of between 6 and 7 metres constitutes less favourable treatment of the population of Roma origin compared to the population of other ethnic origin?

               4.

               On the assumption that there has been less favourable treatment, does that treatment, pursuant to the abovementioned provision, result in the circumstances of the main case in whole or in part from the fact that it affects the Roma ethnic group?

               5.

               Under Directive 2000/34 is a national provision such as Paragraph 1(7) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Zakon za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (Law on Protection against discrimination; ‘ZZD’) — according to which any measure, action or failure to act which directly or indirectly affects rights or legitimate interests constitutes ‘unfavourable treatment’ — permissible?

               6.

               Is the expression ‘apparently neutral practice’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 applicable to the practice of the CEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD of positioning commercial measuring instruments at a height of between 6 and 7 metres? How should the phrase ‘apparently neutral’ be interpreted — as meaning that the practice is obviously neutral or that it only seems neutral, at first glance?

               7.

               For a finding that there has been indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43, is it necessary that the neutral practice places persons in a particularly less favourable position on the ground of racial or ethnic origin, or is it sufficient that that practice affects only persons of a specific ethnic origin? In that context, under Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 is a national provision such as Article 4(3) ZZD — according to which there is indirect discrimination where a person is placed in a more unfavourable position because of the characteristics set out in Article 2(1) (including ethnic origin) — permissible?

               8.

               How should the expression ‘put … at a particular disadvantage’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 be interpreted? Does it correspond to the expression ‘less favourable treatment’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43, or does it cover only particularly serious and obvious cases of unequal treatment? Does the practice described in the present case amount to particularly unfavourable treatment? If there has been no particularly serious and obvious case of putting someone in an unfavourable position, is that sufficient to conclude that there has been no indirect discrimination (without examining whether the practice in question is justified, appropriate and necessary in view of attaining a legitimate aim)?

               9.

               Are national provisions such as Article 4(2) and (3) ZZD — which for direct discrimination require ‘unfavourable treatment’ and for indirect discrimination require ‘placing in a more unfavourable position’ but which do not, unlike the directive, make a distinction according to the degree of seriousness of the unfavourable treatment concerned — permissible under Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2000/43?

               10.

               Is Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43 to be interpreted as meaning that the practice of the CEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD in question in relation to the security of the electricity network and the correct recording of electricity consumption is objectively justified? Is this practice also appropriate in the light of the obligation of CEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD to grant consumers free access to the electricity meter readings? Is that practice necessary when, according to media publications, there are other technically and financially feasible means of securing the commercial measuring instruments?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.


title: Joined Cases C-538/08 and C-33/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — X Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Case C-538/08), Oracle Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi (Case C-33/09) (Sixth VAT Directive — Right to deduct input tax — National legislation excluding certain categories of goods and services from the right to deduct — Option for Member States to retain rules excluding the right to deduct which were in existence when the Sixth VAT Directive entered into force — Amendment after that directive had entered into force)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — X Holding B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Case C-538/08), Oracle Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi (Case C-33/09)
   (Joined Cases C-538/08 and C-33/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct input tax - National legislation excluding certain categories of goods and services from the right to deduct - Option for Member States to retain rules excluding the right to deduct which were in existence when the Sixth VAT Directive entered into force - Amendment after that directive had entered into force)
   2010/C 148/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: X Holding BV (Case-538/08), Oracle Nederland BV (C-33/09)

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Case C-538/08), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi (Case C-33/09)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 11(4) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ English special edition 1967, p. 16) and of Articles 6(2) and 17(2) and (6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the legislation of the Member States concerning turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exclusion of the right of deduction — Power of the Member States to maintain exclusions existing upon the entry into force of the Sixth Directive — Rules pre-dating the Sixth Directive providing for the exclusion of the right of deduction for categories of goods and services provided for use in private transport — Definition of those categories

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11(4) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax, and Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as not precluding the tax legislation of a Member State from excluding from deduction value added tax which relates to categories of expenditure concerning, on the one hand, the provision of ‘private transport’, ‘food’, ‘drink’, ‘accommodation’ and ‘opportunities for recreation’ to the members of staff of a taxable person and, on the other hand, the provision of ‘business gifts’ or ‘other gifts’;

               2.

               Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, enacted before the Sixth Directive entered into force, under which a taxable person may deduct value added tax paid on the acquisition of certain goods and services used partly for private purposes and partly for professional purposes not in full but only in proportion to their use for professional purposes.

               3.

               Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as not precluding an amendment by a Member State, after the entry into force of that directive, to an existing exclusion from the right of deduction, designed in principle to restrict the scope of that exclusion but in respect of which it cannot be ruled out that, in an individual case in a particular tax year, the scope of that exclusion might be extended by reason of the flat-rate nature of the amended scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case F-21/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — ZZ v European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/30

         Action brought on 15 February 2012 — ZZ v European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case F-21/12)
   2012/C 133/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision withdrawing the award of expatriation allowance to the applicant and retroactively seeking to recover that allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (‘AA’) of the EESC of 9 June 2011 withdrawing the award of expatriation allowance to the applicant with effect from 1 July 2010 and seeking to recover the expatriation allowance paid to him since that date;

               —

               Insofar as it is necessary, annul the implied decision of the AA of the EESC rejecting the claim brought by the applicant on 9 September 2011 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the EESC to reimburse the applicant for the expatriation allowance recovered with effect from 1 July 2010 and to pay expatriation allowance which has not been paid since 9 June 2011, all together with late payment interest at the rate of the European Central Bank increased by two points;

               —

               Order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case T-382/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission (Customs union — Rice paper from Vietnam — Remission of import duties — Equitable relief — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Error of the customs authority — Definition of manifest negligence — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods v Commission
   (Case T-382/04) (1)

   (Customs union - Rice paper from Vietnam - Remission of import duties - Equitable relief - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Error of the customs authority - Definition of manifest negligence - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Principle of proportionality)
   (2006/C 331/80)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading BV (Landgraaf, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Bie, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/2002 of 17 June 2004 finding the remission of import duties in a particular case to be unjustified
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2000 in Case T-51/96: Miwon Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping — Breach of a price undertaking — Injury to the Community)

text:
C 163/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 30 March 2000
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
in Case T-51/96: Miwon Co. Ltd v Council of the European
                            Union (1)                                    in Joined Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98, Eugénio Branco,
                                                                             Lda v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Anti-dumping — Breach of a price undertaking — Injury                   (European Social Fund — Action for failure to act —
                       to the Community)                                 Admissibility — Action for annulment — Decision to
                                                                         suspend financial assistance — Certification by the Member
                                                                         State — Misappraisal of the facts — Legitimate expectations
                                                                           — Acquired rights — Legal certainty — Proportionality)
                         (2000/C 163/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/47)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case T-51/96 Miwon Co. Ltd, established in Seoul, South               In Joined Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98, Eugénio Branco, Lda,
Korea, represented by J.F. Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an          established in Lisbon, represented by B. Belchior, of the Vila
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch              Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v Council of the European Union,               at the Chambers of J. Schroeder, 6 Rue Heine v Commission
(Agents: A. Tanca, H.-J. Rabe and G. Khan), supported by                 of the European Communities (Agents: in case T-194/97,
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: N. Khan)                 A.M. Alves Vieira and K. Simonsson and, in Case T-83/98,
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No                M.T. Figueira and K. Simonsson) — Application, in Case
81/96 of 19 January 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No                    T-194/97, for a declaration of failure to act by the defendant
2455/93 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports               in so far as it unlawfully failed to rule on the claim for final
of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the Repub-             payment of financial assistance awarded by the European
lic of Korea and Taiwan and collecting definitively the pro-             Social Fund in case nos 870301 P1 and 870302 P3 and, in Case
visional duties imposed and terminating the proceeding with              T-83/98, for annulment of Commission Decisions C (1998) 47
regard to Thailand (OJ 1996 L 15, p. 20), in so far as it                and C (1998) 48 of 17 February 1998 suspending such
concerns the applicant — the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              assistance — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
Composition), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts,            composed of M. Jaeger, President and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-            Judges; M. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March              judgment on 27 January 2000 in which it:
2000, in which it:
                                                                         1. Orders that Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98 be joined for the
1. Dismisses the action;                                                      purposes of judgment;
                                                                         2. Finds the action for failure to act in Case T-194/97 to be
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of         inadmissible;
     the Council;
                                                                         3. Dismisses the action for annulment in Case T-83/98;
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                         4. Orders the defendant to pay 10% of the applicant’s costs in
                                                                              addition to its own costs.
(1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997 and C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case F-93/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/46

         Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-93/11)
   2011/C 347/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision adopted by the chairman of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries (AST 1) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted on 15 June 2011 not to allow the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for Competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries, grade AST 1;

               —

               as a result, rule that the applicant must be reinstated within the recruitment process initiated by that competition, if necessary, through the organisation of fresh assessment tests;

               —

               in any event, request EPSO to disclose the information in its possession regarding the results obtained by all the candidates in test (d);

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the main claim is not upheld, quod non, pay the applicant an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;

               —

               in any event, pay the applicant, by way of non-material damages, an amount fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000.


title: Case T-230/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/32

         Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
   (Case T-230/17)
   (2017/C 178/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and G. Smith, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘RSTUDIO’ –International registration designating the European Union No 999 644

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 493/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below; in the alternative, if the potential intervener actually intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener to be jointly and severally liable for the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the goods for which proof of use had been established and, accordingly, failed to conduct the correct comparison of goods;

               —

               The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the similarity of the relevant goods and the similarity of the relevant marks and, accordingly, wrongly assessed the existence of the likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-124/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168(a) and 176 — Right to deduction — Expenditure related to the purchase of goods and the supply of services for staff — Staff supplied to the taxable persons claiming the right to deduction but employed by another taxable person)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-124/12) (1)

   (Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168(a) and 176 - Right to deduction - Expenditure related to the purchase of goods and the supply of services for staff - Staff supplied to the taxable persons claiming the right to deduction but employed by another taxable person)
   2013/C 260/21
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Plovdiv

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Articles 168(a) and 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1) — Scope — Limitation of the right to deduct input tax — Company with no employees of its own but hiring workers full-time under a contract for the provision of staff employed by another company — Refusal of the right to deduct the VAT on the acquisition of transport services, work clothing and protective gear for workers and on business travel expenses of workers on the ground that the services are supplied free of charge to natural persons working for the company without being employed by it

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 168(a) and the second paragraph of Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person which incurs costs for transport services, work clothing, protective gear and business trips for staff working for that taxable person does not have the right to a deduction of the VAT relating to those costs on the ground that that staff is provided to it by another entity and accordingly cannot be regarded, for the purposes of that legislation, as members of the taxable person’s staff, despite the fact that those costs can be regarded as having a direct and immediate link with the general costs connected with all the economic activities of that taxable person;

               2.

               The second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112 is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, on its accession to the European Union, from introducing a limitation on the right to a deduction under a national legislative provision which provides for the exclusion from the right to a deduction of goods and services intended to be supplied free of charge or for activities outside the scope of the taxable person’s economic activity, when such an exclusion was not provided for in the national legislation in force until the date of that accession;
               It is for the referring court to interpret the provisions of domestic law at issue in the main proceedings, so far as possible, in accordance with European Union law. Where such an interpretation proves impossible, the referring court is required to set aside those provisions on the ground that they are incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case T-595/10: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014  — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RIPASSA — Earlier national word mark VINO DI RIPASSO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Cantina Broglie 1 v OHIM — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (RIPASSA)
   (Case T-595/10) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RIPASSA - Earlier national word mark VINO DI RIPASSO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 253/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (Peschiera del Garda, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer, allowed to replace A. Zenato)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona (Verona, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona and Mr Alberto Zenato

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2010 (Case R 63/2010-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-212/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern (Frontier worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Transfer of residence to another Member State — Non-working spouse — Child-raising allowance — Not granted to spouse — Social advantage — Residence condition)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-212/05) (1)

   (Frontier worker - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Transfer of residence to another Member State - Non-working spouse - Child-raising allowance - Not granted to spouse - Social advantage - Residence condition)
   (2007/C 211/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundessozialgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gertraud Hartmann

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Concept of worker — German official having transferred his permanent residence to Austria while continuing to work in Germany — Refusal to grant child-raising allowance (Erziehungsgeld) to his spouse of Austrian nationality resident in Austria and not working in Germany — Social advantage
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               A national of a Member State who, while maintaining his employment in that State, has transferred his residence to another Member State and has since then carried on his occupation as a frontier worker can claim the status of migrant worker for the purposes of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.

               2)

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 precludes the spouse of a migrant worker carrying on an occupation in one Member State, who does not work and is resident in another Member State, from being refused a social advantage with the characteristics of German child-raising allowance on the ground that he did not have his permanent or ordinary residence in the former State.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.