title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 28 March 1996 in the case of Manfred Molenaar and Barbara Fath-Molenaar v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg (Case C-160/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 197/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of               persons residing in another Member State are liable to pay
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of            compulsory contributions, even though their entitlement to
3 May 1996, in the case of The Queen against Ministry of              benefits is simultaneously excluded or suspended because of
Agriculture Fisheries and Food and The Commissioners for              their place of residence ?
Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers' Union,
David Burnett and Sons Limited, R. S. and E. Wright
Limited, Anglo Beef Processors Limited, United Kingdom
Genetics (a firm), Wyjac Calves Limited, International
Traders Ferry Limited, MFP International Limited,                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Interstate Truck Rental Limited and Vian Exports Limited,             Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 19 March 1996 in
Interveners: Anglo Dutch Meat Exports Limited, Beck Food              the case of Siidzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v.
Group Limited, First City Trading Limited, Weddel Swift                                 Hauptzollamt Mannheim
Limited, Carrex August Limited, Meatal Supplies                                              ( Case C-161/96 )
(Wholesale Meats ) Limited, Meat Marketing Services ( UK )
Limited, NWL ( Ireland) Limited, Hibernia Foods pic, D. T.                                      ( 96/C 197/25 )
Duggins Limited, Swallow Foods International Limited and
          The British Association of Sheep Exporters                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate of
                         Case C-157/96 )                              the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 19 March
                          ( 96/C 197/23 )                             1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May
                                                                      1 996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siidzucker AG
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v . Hauptzollamt Mannheim on the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                 following question:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 3 May 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 May 1996 , for a                  Is    Commission     Regulation      ( EEC ) No 2670/81       of
preliminary ruling in the case of the Queen against Ministry          14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Commissioners               rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota
for Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers'                 ( OJ L 262, 1981 , p . 14 ) in conjunction with Commission
Union and others , Interveners : Anglo Dutch Meat Exports             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3183/80 of 3 December 1980 laying
Limited and others, on the following question:                        down common detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                      system of import and export licences and advance fixing
Is Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March             certificates for agricultural products ( OJ L 338 , 1980, p . 1 )
 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine                 valid, having regard in particular to the Community law
spongiform encephalopathy f 1 ), Official Journal 1996,               principle of proportionality, in so far as its result is that
No L 78 , p. 47, invalid in whole or in part, in particular           sugar is deemed to have been disposed of on the internal
because the Commission lacked the power or else misused               market — that being the basis for levying the charge on
the power to adopt the Commission Decision or because it              sugar production — if it has actually been exported but
infringes the principle of proportionality ?                          without completion of the customs formalities, and proof
                                                                      consequently cannot be furnished by means of copy No 1 of
 H OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p . 47 .                              the export licence with the attributions and endorsements of
                                                                      the customs authorities ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
 Karlsruhe by order of that court of 28 March 1996 in the              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 case of Manfred Molenaar and Barbara Fath-Molenaar v.                Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
      Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Wiirttemberg                   the case of A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Mainz
                        ( Case C-160/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/24 )                                                    ( Case C-162/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/26 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Eleventh                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Chamber of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Karlsruhe of             European Communities by a an order of the Seventh Senate
 28 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry               of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March
 on 13 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of              1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May
 Manfred      Molenaar       and   Barbara  Fath-Molenaar      v.      1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. Racke
 Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (general local health                     GmbH & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Mainz on the following
 insurance fund ) Baden-Wiirttemberg on the following                  questions :
 question :
                                                                        1 . Is Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3300/91 of
 Are Articles 6 and 48 ( 2 ) of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted            11 November 1991 suspending the trade concessions
 as restricting the right of a Member State to set up a social              provided for by the Cooperation Agreement between
 security system covering the risk of need of care as part of               the European Economic Community and the Socialist
 statutory compulsory insurance arrangements under which                    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( ] ) valid ?


title: Case C-129/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Guido Durlet, Angela Verweij, Chretien Bruninx, Hans Hoff, Michel Raeds v Région wallone

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Guido Durlet, Angela Verweij, Chretien Bruninx, Hans Hoff, Michel Raeds v Région wallone
   (Case C-129/09)
   2009/C 153/36
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Guido Durlet, Angela Verweij, Chretien Bruninx, Hans Hoff, Michel Raeds

      Defendant: Région wallone

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Council Directive No 97/11/EC (2) and Directive No 2003/35/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, (4) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case T-230/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve v OHIM — Ester C (ESTER-E) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ESTER-E — Earlier Community figurative mark ESTER-E — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve v OHIM — Ester C (ESTER-E)
   (Case T-230/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ESTER-E - Earlier Community figurative mark ESTER-E - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2009/C 205/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve SA (Barcelona (Spain)) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: The Ester C Company (Prescott, Arizona, United States) (represented by: initially R. Bird, Solicitor, and subsequently by H. Wistam, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2007 (Case R 737/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, SA and The Ester C Company.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-453/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam): W. Bulthuis-Griffioen v. Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting (Common system of value added tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Services of social nature performed by a private person - Exclusion)

text:
No C 248/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 August 1995                                                        ( Second Chamber)
       in Case C-431/92 : Commission of the European                                            of 11 August 1995
       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )
                                                                        in Case C-453/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure ofa Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure           the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam ): W. Bulthuis-Griffioen v.
by public authorities to apply a directive which has not yet                            Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting ( l )
been transposed — Council Directive 85/337/EEC —
                                                                        (Common system ofvalue added tax — Sixth VA TDirective
Assessment of the effects ofprojects on the environment —
                                                                        — Exemption — Services of social nature performed by a
Großkrotzenburg thermal power station — Consent for the
                  construction of a new block)
                                                                                private person — Exclusion)
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/03 )
                             ( 95/C 248/02 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
(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-431 /92 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : initially Ingolf Pernice, then Rolf
Wagenbaur, assisted by Alexander Böhlke, of the Brussels                In Case C-453/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Bar ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder,              of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court of
assisted by Dieter Sellner, Rechtsanwalt), supported by                 Appeal ), Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,                   proceedings pending before that court between
( Agent: S. Lucinda Hudson ) — application for a declaration            W. Bulthuis-Griffioen and Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting
that, by granting development consent by decision of                    — on the interpretation of Article 13A of the Sixth Council
31 August 1989 for the construction of a new block at the               Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
Großkrotzenburg thermal power station without a                          harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
preliminary environmental impact assessment, the Federal                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its                        uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court ( Second
obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty read              Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ),
in conjunction with Council Directive 85/377/EEC of                      President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain                Judges; G. Kosmas, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein,
public and private projects on the environment (2 ), and in              Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
particular Articles 2 , 3 and 8 of that Directive — the Court,           11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.
A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
 and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                    Article 13 A (1 ) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                         system of value added tax: uniform basis ofassessment is to
                                                                         be interpreted as meaning that a trader who is a natural
                                                                         person cannot claim exemption under paragraph (g) of that
 1 . dismisses the application;                                          provision, which expressly reserves the exemption to bodies
                                                                         governed by public law or other oganizations recognized as
                                                                         charitable by the Member State concerned.
 2 . orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear their
       own costs .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
  (•) OJ No C 29 , 2 . 2 . 1993 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .


title: Case T-404/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Toshiba v Commission (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court — Fines — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Starting amount — Extent of contribution to the infringement)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Toshiba v Commission
   (Case T-404/12) (1)

   ((Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court - Fines - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Starting amount - Extent of contribution to the infringement))
   (2016/C 078/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz and S. Sakellariou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4381 of 27 June 2012 amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to the extent that it was addressed to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Toshiba Corp. (Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — Fines), and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case C-129/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2008 — C. Cloet and J. Cloet v CVBA Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2008 — C. Cloet and J. Cloet v CVBA Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand
   (Case C-129/08)
   (2008/C 142/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brugge
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: C. Cloet and J. Cloet

      Defendants: CVBA Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a financial advantage granted to NV Metafox by the Flemish Region/Flemish Community through a decentralised administrative authority, the WVI, in the form of a preferential price for the purchase of industrial/commercial land of 1 ha 82 a 72 m2, performed by the WVI for a sum stated in the sales instrument to be EUR 294 394,14‘for tax’ in respect of a preferential price in reality of EUR 91 720,60, compatible with the common market, given that the cost price of purchasing such industrial/commercial land under normal circumstances, applying average values for such land at that place, is EUR 1 007 926,40?

               2.

               Through such expropriation and subsequent sale to NV Metafox (specifically the preferential price paid by NV Metafox of EUR 91 720,60) does the Flemish Region/Flemish Community, through the WVI, not indirectly benefit the favoured undertaking, NV Metafox, by directly conferring an economic advantage on it (namely the difference between the price paid and the ‘for tax’ sale price stated in the sales instrument), since the favoured undertaking, NV Metafox, could not have acquired this land under normal market conditions (EUR 1 007 926,40) or at the ‘for tax’ sale price (EUR 294 394,14)?
               Consequently, can such a measure of the WVI (specifically the sale of industrial land for the preferential price actually paid) be classified as a financial advantage that is contrary to Article 87(1) EC?


title: Case C-534/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic v BB construct s.r.o.

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 20 October 2016 — Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic v BB construct s.r.o.
   (Case C-534/16)
   (2017/C 022/09)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic

      Respondent: BB construct s.r.o.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it possible to interpret as in accordance with the objective of Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, that is, the prevention of VAT evasion, an approach on the part of a national body which considers the fact that the current director of a legal person was also the director of another legal person which has outstanding tax liabilities to be a ground under national law for requiring payment of a tax deposit of up to the value of EUR 500 000?

               2.

               May it be held that the abovementioned tax deposit, given its amount, which may be up to the value of EUR 500 000 as in the present case, is consistent with the freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], does not directly force the taxable person to declare bankruptcy, does not constitute discrimination under Article 21(1) [of the Charter] and does not constitute a breach, in the area of the levying of VAT, of the ne bis in idem principle or of the prohibition on retroactivity under Article 49(1) and (3) of the Charter?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-123/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Pfizer Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.7.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 171/31
Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Pfizer Limited                         in the sense intended in Article 30. Second, the applicant
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      claims he has neither been clearly informed of the question
                                                                          which has been referred to the CPMP, nor has he received a
                                                                          satisfactory explanation of the issues raised. Third, the
                         (Case T-123/03)                                  appliquant invokes the absence of any question of quality,
                                                                          safety and/or efficacy of the product. The absence of genuine
                                                                          public health reasons could be inferred from the failure to
                        (2003/C 171/53)
                                                                          include generic versions of ‘Lopid’ in the referral to the CPMP.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                          violated the principle of good administration and/or misused
                                                                          its powers. Referring to the Judgment of the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Instance of the European Communities in Case Artegodan et
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                al v Commission ( 1), the applicant submits that an Article 30
European Communities on 10 April 2003 by Pfizer Limited,                  referral can not lead to a binding Commission decision.
Sandwich, United Kingdom, represented by D. Anderson QC,                  Furthermore, the applicant submits that it is extremely unlikely
Mr K. Bacon, Barrister, Mr I. Dodds-Smith and Mr T. Fox,                  that all of the national competent authorities would abandon
Solicitors.                                                               their views in face of the non-binding CPMP opinion. The
                                                                          applicant then concludes that the Article 30 referral was
                                                                          made for a purpose which cannot be achieved and that the
                                                                          Commission’s failure to take this into account leads to a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               breach of the principle of good administration. Further or
                                                                          alternatively, the approach of the Commission amounts to
—     annul the Decision of 6 January 2003 of the Commission              misuse of powers.
      initiating a referral ‘Lopid’ to the Committee for Pro-
      prietary Medicinal Products (‘CPMP’) under article 30 of
      the Community Code on human medicines.                              (1 ) Case T-74/00; Currently under appeal by the Commission: Case
                                                                               C-39/03 P.
—     order the Defendant to pay the Applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is active in the field of medicinal products. The
applicant represents various companies that are the Marketing             Action brought on 18 April 2003 by SUCCESS-MARKET-
Authorisation Holders (‘MAH’) for ‘Lopid’ throughout the EU               ING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft m.b.H. against
and Iceland. The authorisations in the EU were obtained under             the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
national marketing procedures. As a result, there are some                               (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM)
differences between the EU authorisations. Due to the diver-
gence of national decisions, the Commission notified the
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products                                           (Case T-128/03)
(‘EMEA’) of an official referral under Article 30 of the
Community Code on human medicines with the object of
producing a harmonised Summary of Product Characteristics                                          (2003/C 171/54)
(‘SPC’). The EMEA notified this Decision of the Commission to
the applicant by letter dated 27 January 2003.
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
In support of its claim, the applicant invokes a lack of
competence, infringement of an essential procedural require-
ment and/or misuse of powers.
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
According to the applicant, the contested Decision should be              Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) was brought before
annulled on the grounds of lack of competence of the EMEA/                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
CPMP and the Commission. The applicant argues that none of                18 April 2003 by SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensbera-
the three preconditions for a valid Article 30 referral by the            tungsgesellschaft m.b.H., Linz (Austria), represented by
Commission have been met. First, the applicant submits that               G. Secklehner, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
the divergent decisions concerning the terms of the SPCs are              bourg. Chipita International S.A., Athens, was also a party to
not divergent decisions concerning the authorisation of ‘Lopid’           the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-74/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/21

         Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-74/10 P)
   2010/C 113/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07, EREF v Commission of the European Communities, null and void;

               —

               refer the case back for judgment to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the procedural costs of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant asks the Court to declare the Order of the CFI of 19 November 2009 in case T-94/07 null and void and to refer it back to the General Court for reconsideration.
   The Appellant contests the CFI's conclusion that its lawyer, Dr Fouquet, could not represent it before the CFI and that its application was therefore inadmissible.
   The CFI considers that because Dr Fouquet was nominated as a director of EREF on 29 June 2004 she could no longer be considered an independent third party. The Appellant submits that Dr Fouquet had not been formally nominated as a director of EREF — under Belgian law such a nomination would have required official registration with the competent Belgian authorities. The director status of Dr Fouquet at EREF was titular only and not, or only to a very limited extent, linked to the power of representation.
   The Appellant also submits that even if it is assumed that the position of Dr Fouquet as director was of a formal nature the CFI incorrectly applied the criteria for assessing the status of a lawyer as an independent third party. It is submitted that the CFI misunderstood both the legal situation of EREF's representative before the Court and the real distribution of tasks and obligations between Dr Fouquet and EREF. Pursuant to German law the position of Dr Fouquet as director of EREF would allow her to represent the Appellant before the Court.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 20 February 1997 in Case C-128/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Lyon): Fontaine SA and Others v. Aqueducs Automobiles Sarl (Competition - Vehicle distribution - Parallel imports - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Applicability as against third parties - Independent reseller - Definition of 'new vehicle' and 'second-hand vehicle')

text:
5 . 4 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                                       ( Second Chamber)
                      of 20 February 1997                                                   of 20 February 1997
in Case C-107/95 P: Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter                in Case C-128/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      eV v. Commission of the European Communities (')                the Tribunal de Commerce de Lyon ): Fontaine SA and
                                                                                Others v. Aqueducs Automobiles Sari (')
(Appeals — Action for annulment — Admissibility —
Refusal by the Commission to commence proceedings                     (Competition — Vehicle distribution — Parallel imports —
against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations —            Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 — Applicability as against
Refusal by the Commission to take measures under                      third parties — Independent reseller — Definition of 'new
                Article 90 (3) of the EC Treaty)                                    vehicle ' and 'second-hand vehicle')
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/08 )
                          ( 97/C 108/07 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (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-128/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce
In Case C-107/95 P : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter               ( Commercial Court), Lyon ( France ), for a preliminary
eV, an association governed by German law, established                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
in Bonn ( Germany), represented by Joachim Müller,                    between Fontaine SA, Garage Laval SA, Fahy SA, Renault
Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address for service in                  Lyon Ouest FLB Automobiles SA, Diffusion Vallis Auto
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen,                      SA, Horizon Sud SA and Aqueducs Automobiles Sari —
12 Boulevard de la Foire — appeal against the order of                on the interpretation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ) of                     No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the application of
23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 Bilanzbuchhalter v.                   Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EEC Treaty to certain categories of
Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-101 , seeking to have that                  motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements ( OJ
order set aside — the other party to the proceedings being            No L 15, 18 . 1 . 1985 , p. 16 ) — the Court ( Second
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                       Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the
Marie-Jose Jonczy and Norbert Lorenz ) — the Court                    Chamber, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the            Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; D.
First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                  Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Chamber ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward,                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 1997, in
                                                                      which it has ruled :
J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 20 February 1997, in which it:
                                                                      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
                                                                      1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                             and servicing agreements is to be interpreted as not
                                                                      preventing a trader who is neither an approved reseller in
                                                                      the distribution network of a manufacturer of a particular
                                                                      make of motor vehicle nor an authorized intermediary
2 . orders the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV to               within the meaning of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation
      pay the costs.                                                  from undertaking parallel imports and operating as an
                                                                      independent reseller of new vehicles of that make.
 H OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                       (») OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case C-484/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il. Lazio by judgment of that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Carlo Balestreri against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning, the other party being Parmalat SpA

text:
21.4.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/9
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                If not:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                            1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
                                                                            provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                            prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
If not:                                                                     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                            in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                            provisions?
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of                 as meaning that the individual reference quantity need
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not             not necessarily be notified separately to each producer,
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                  but may be communicated in other ways such as the
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                   publication of notices?
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
     provisions?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                    court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole
Amministrativo Regionale per il. Lazio by judgment of                  Visentin and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi
that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Carlo Balestreri              nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other parties to the
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                proceedings being Ind. Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli
Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the                                             and Others
Budget and Planning, the other party being Parmalat SpA
                                                                                (Case C-495/00)
                        (Case C-484/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/14)
                        (2001/C 118/13)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
European Communities by judgment of 6 July 2000 of the                 Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at           the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary              ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Visentin and Others v
ruling in the case of Carlo Balestreri against Azienda di Stato        Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry        (AIMA), the other parties to the proceedings being Ind.
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning, the other party being        Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli and Others on the following
Parmalat SpA, on the following questions:                              questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or             meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                    quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?


title: Case T-385/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Transnáutica v Commission (Customs union — External Community transit operations — Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries — Fraud — Claim for remission of import duties — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Fairness clause — Existence of a special situation — Comprehensive guarantee)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/53

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Transnáutica v Commission
   (Case T-385/05) (1)

   (Customs union - External Community transit operations - Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries - Fraud - Claim for remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Fairness clause - Existence of a special situation - Comprehensive guarantee)
   2009/C 267/90
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, D. Ortigão Ramos and B. Aniceto Silva, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 refusing the reimbursement and remission of certain customs duties.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 330, of 24.12.2005.


title: Case C-482/08: Action brought on 10 November 2008 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/15

         Action brought on 10 November 2008 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-482/08)
   (2009/C 32/24)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent, T. Ward, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (1);

               —

               determine, following the annulment of the VIS Police Access Decision, that its provisions should remain effective, except in so far as they have the effect of excluding the United Kingdom from participating in the application of the VIS Police Access Decision;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The United Kingdom was denied the right to take part in the adoption of the VIS Police Access Decision on the grounds that the Council considered that the measure constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part — namely the common visa policy. As a consequence, the Council considers that the United Kingdom is not bound by the Decision or subject to its application.
   The United Kingdom contends that the Council was wrong to conclude that the Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part. The VIS Police Access Decision is not a development of the common visa policy, but rather, a police cooperation measure. Neither the aim nor the content of the VIS Police Access Decision relate to the common visa policy. Rather it is entirely concerned with the sharing of information entered by visa authorities with designated law enforcement authorities and Europol for the purpose of prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious offences. This is reflected in the Council's choice of legal basis, namely Articles 30(1)(b) and 34(2)(c) TEU.
   The annulment of the VIS Police Access Decision is accordingly sought on the grounds that the exclusion of the United Kingdom from its adoption entails the infringement of an essential procedural requirement and/or the infringement of the Treaty, within the meaning of Article 35(6) EU.

      (1)  OJ L 218, p. 129.


title: Case T-117/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/35

         Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)
   (Case T-117/16)
   (2016/C 191/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration;

               —

               Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 16 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria (Case C-461/98)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/19
     proceedings because of the emergence of new                    Ð order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
     circumstances, according to which an internal
     Commission decision changing the criteria for the
     classification of officials must be regarded as a              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     supervening event.
Ð Infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, under               Article 12(1) of the directive provides that the Member
     which the Commission should have taken all the steps           States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and
     necessary to comply with the judgment of the CFI in            administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
     Alexopolou (1).                                                directive not later than 21 November 1996.
Ð Breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment            The Republic of Austria has not adopted the necessary
     embodied in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and          measures within that deadline.
     upheld in the case-law of the ECJ and CFI.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.
Ð Infringement of Community law: the order is not
     consistent with the duty of assistance and protection
     laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
Ð The contested order of the CFI contains a defective
     statement of reasons, in that it does not sufficiently         Action brought on 21 December 1998 (lodged on
     explain why the internal Commission decision of                18 December 1998) by the Commission of the European
     7 February 1996 cannot be regarded as a supervening                     Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     event.
                                                                                (Case C-470/98)
( ) Case T-17/95 ECR-SC [1995] II-683.
 1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/31)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 21 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 December 1998 by the Commission                Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
of the European Communities against the Republic of                 its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                            Austria                                 Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                    its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
                       (Case C-461/98)
                        (1999/C 48/30)
                                                                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             Ð declare that, by failing, except as regards fresh meat
on 16 December 1998 by the Commission of the                             and poultrymeat, to take the necessary measures to
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,                       ensure that the costs of the veterinary and
Legal Adviser, and Karin Schreyer, a national civil servant              administrative checks in respect of products of
on secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an                 agricultural origin from third countries, required
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos                under Articles 3(ii) and 4 of Council Directive
Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                       90/675/EEC (1), are met by the consignor, the
                                                                         consignee or their agent, without reimbursement by
                                                                         the State, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                    Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     and administrative measures necessary in order
     to comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of
     21 November 1994 esetablishing the fundamental
     principles governing the investigation of civil aviation       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     accidents and incidents (1), alternatively by failing to
     communicate those measures to the Commission, the
     Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty directives are binding
     under that directive;                                          upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Cagliari, by order of that court of 23 March 1998 in the case of Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and ERSAT - Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura (Case C-403/98)

text:
C 20/16              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23.1.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                 Ð the Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
(England and Wales) by order of that court of 31 July                         authorising the acquisition of Central and
1998, in the case of H. J. Banks & Company Ltd against                        Northern Mining Limited by RJB Mining plc.,
1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of State for Trade
                         and Industry
                                                                          Ð the communications sent by DGXVII of the
                      (Case C-390/98)                                         Commission to NALOO dated 4 May and 13 July
                                                                              1995?
                       (1999/C 20/25)
                                                                     4. As a matter of Community law, does the fact that
                                                                          Banks or NALOO did not:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of
Appeal (England and Wales) of 31 July 1998, which was                     a) challenge, under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty,
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 1998, for a                      Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC or the
preliminary ruling in the case of H. J. Banks & Company                       Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
Ltd against 1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of                         authorising the acquisition of Central and
State for Trade and Industry, on the following questions:                     Northern Mining Limited by RJB Mining plc or
                                                                              the letters sent to DGXVII of the Commission to
                                                                              NALOO dated 4 May and 14 July 1995; and/or
1. Is the difference of treatment referred to in the
    judgments of the Court of Appeal capable of                           b) invoke the procedure provided for in Article 35 of
    constituting:                                                             the ECSC Treaty in order to require the
                                                                              Commission to deal with the issues now raised in
                                                                              the proceedings before the national court
    Ð discrimination       between      producers'     within
        Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty;
                                                                          preclude Banks from raising alleged breaches of
                                                                          Article 4(b) or 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, or of
                                                                          Commission        Decision      No     3632/93/ECSC        in
    Ð a special charge' within Article 4(c) of the same                  proceedings in the national courts?
        Treaty; and/or
                                                                     (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
                                                                         1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
    Ð aid' within Article 4(c) of the same Treaty or                    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
        within Article 1 of Commission Decision                      (2) Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC of 3 November 1994
        No 3632/93/ECSC (1)                                              ruling on financial measures by the United Kingdom in respect
                                                                         of the coal industry in the 1994/95 and 1995/96 financial year
                                                                         (OJ L 379, 31.12.1994, p. 6).
2. Do paragraphs (b) or (c) of Article 4 of the ECSC
    Treaty or paragraphs (1) or (4) of Article 9 of
    Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC produce
    direct effects and confer on private undertakings the
    right, enforceable in national courts, to defend a claim
    for mining royalties made by a public body and to
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
    claim restitution of royalties paid to it, in particular in
                                                                     Cagliari, by order of that court of 23 March 1998 in the
    the absence of a Commission Decision made pursuant
                                                                     case of Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl against
    to Article 67 or Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty or
                                                                     Regione       Autonoma         della   Sardegna,     Organismo
    Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC or otherwise
                                                                     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and ERSAT Ð Ente
    to the effect that the matters alleged constitute
                                                                           Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura
    discrimination', a special charge' or aid'?
                                                                                (Case C-403/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/26)
3. If so, may a national court determine that there is
    discrimination' within the meaning of paragraph (b)
    of Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty or a special charge'            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    within the meaning of paragraph (c) thereof or aid'             European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
    within the meaning of paragraph (c) thereof or of                Cagliari of 23 March 1998, received at the Court Registry
    Article 1 of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC                 on 13 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling on the
    notwithstanding:                                                 interpretation of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 797/85 (1) of 12 March 1985 and Article 5(5) of
                                                                     subsequent Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (2) of
    Ð Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC (2);                           15 July 1991 in the case of Azienda Agricola Monte
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/17
Arcosu Srl    against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna,              2. If the answer to the questions at (1) above leads to the
Organismo     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and                   conclusion that the carnet holder has not failed to
ERSAT Ð       Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in                comply with the time-limit for proving the actual place
Agricoltura  on the following questions:                                where the offence or irregularity was committed:
(1) Despite the silence of the Italian legislature, is it in
     any event possible to apply the Community                          What are the requirements for furnishing satisfactory
     provisions in question to persons other than natural               proof of the place where the offence or irregularity
     persons, and in particular to companies having legal               was actually committed in the course of a transport
     personality?                                                       operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
                                                                        (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
(2) If an affirmative answer is given to the first question,            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)? May a statement by
     what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for               the carnet holder and the testimony of the lorry driver
     conferring the status of farmers practising farming as             who has effected the transport for the carnet holder be
     their main occupation on persons other than natural                sufficient proof, or can proof only be provided by
     persons and, in particular, on companies with legal                documents which unambiguously show that the
     personality?                                                       competent authorities of the other Member State have
                                                                        found that the offence or irregularity was committed
                                                                        on their territory?
(1) OJ L 93, 30.3.1985, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.
                                                                    3. If the Court of Justice considers that proof of the
                                                                        actual place where the offence or irregularity was
                                                                        committed was provided in due time, and considers it
                                                                        permissible to adduce such proof in the manner
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-                     described:
finanzhof by order of that court of 6 October 1998 in the
case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c.
        Transport MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL)                       Are the third and fourth subparagraphs of
                       (Case C-406/98)                                  Article 454(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they also apply in cases
                        (1999/C 20/27)
                                                                        where the duties were recovered in the Member State
                                                                        where the offence or irregularity was detected, even
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      though it has been proved within the period prescribed
the European Communities by an order of the                             by the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) and by
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 6 October                    Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 that the
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                       offence or irregularity was actually committed in
16 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               another Member State?
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c. Transport
MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL) on the following
questions:
1. Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of
    Article 454(3) and with Article 455(1) of Commission
    Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)              Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October
    Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) if, where a                   1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and
    consignment which has been cleared for the external                           Excise against Mirror Group plc.
    transit procedure under a TIR carnet is not produced
    at the destination, the customs authorities of the                                    (Case C-409/98)
    Member State of dispatch set the carnet holder a
                                                                                (1999/C 20/28)
    preclusive period of three months in which to provide
    satisfactory proof of the actual place where the offence
    or irregularity was committed, with the consequence
    that proof which is produced later leaves unaffected            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the competence of the Member State of dispatch to               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    recover the duties?                                             Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
                                                                    Divisional Court, of 15 October 1998, which was received
    If the above question is answered in the negative:              at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for a
    Within what period may the carnet holder prove the              preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of
    actual place where the offence or irregularity has been         Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc, on the
    committed?                                                      following questions:


title: Case C-34/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V. (Directive 98/44/EC — Article 6(2)(c) — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Extraction of precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells — Patentability — Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ — Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘use for industrial or commercial purposes’ )

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V.
   (Case C-34/10) (1)

   (Directive 98/44/EC - Article 6(2)(c) - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Extraction of precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells - Patentability - Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ - Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘use for industrial or commercial purposes’)
   2011/C 362/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oliver Brüstle

      Defendant: Greenpeace e.V.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13) — Extraction, for the purposes of scientific research, of precursor cells from human embryonic stem cells taken from a blastocyst, which is no longer capable of developing into a human being — Exclusion from patentability of that process as ‘use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’? — Concept of ‘human embryos’ and ‘uses for industrial or commercial purposes’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ‘human embryo’;

                           —

                           it is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of scientific developments, whether a stem cell obtained from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage constitutes a ‘human embryo’ within the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44.

               2.

               The exclusion from patentability concerning the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes set out in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 also covers the use of human embryos for purposes of scientific research, only use for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which is applied to the human embryo and is useful to it being patentable.

               3.

               Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44 excludes an invention from patentability where the technical teaching which is the subject-matter of the patent application requires the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material, whatever the stage at which that takes place and even if the description of the technical teaching claimed does not refer to the use of human embryos.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-263/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 June 2015 — Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-263/15)
   (2015/C 294/28)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the circumstances of the present case, are the applicants acting as taxable persons in view of the fact that the interpretation of Article 9(1) (1) of the VAT Directive does not exclude activities carried out by companies from the scope of the term ‘economic activity’, even when those companies can only engage in commercial activities on an ancillary basis?

               2.

               Should the fact that the applicants receive a significant share of their funding from State aid and the fact that, in the context of the management of their operation, the applicants obtain income from charging modest fees, be taken into account for the purposes of considering whether the applicants are ‘taxable persons’?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, must it be considered that that ‘fee’ represents consideration for a service and that there is a direct link between the service rendered and the payment of the consideration?

               4.

               Does the management of the investment constitute a supply of services by the applicants, within the meaning of Article 24 of the VAT Directive, or can that management not be regarded as a supply of services on account of the fact that its performance is a legal obligation?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-50/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): Jean-Marie Podesta v Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others (Social policy — Equal pay for men and women — Private, inter-occupational, supplementary retirement pension scheme based on defined contributions and run on a "pay-as-you-go" basis— Survivors' pensions for which the age conditions for grant vary according to sex)

text:
C 233/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)             Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                   have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) applies to
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC)       supplementary retirement pension schemes, such as that at issue in
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by               the main proceedings, and precludes those schemes from discrimina-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be                ting, as from 17 May 1990, between men and women in respect of
interpreted in the light of the principles governing the system for the     the age at which their spouse is entitled to a survivor’s pension
grant of a special reference quantity as meaning that a producer            following the death of those employees.
holding an original reference quantity who provisionally receives a
special reference quantity in addition may not be definitively allocated
that special reference quantity, regardless of the other conditions
                                                                            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
required, when he himself has not used it in order to increase current
milk production on his holding. That is the case where such a
producer leases out his original reference quantity and produces on
his holding only his provisional special reference quantity of milk.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 8 June 2000
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-98/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 25 May 2000                                   the High Court of Justice (England &Wales), Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Commissioners of
in Case C-50/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               Customs & Excise v Midland Bank plc (1)
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): Jean-Marie
Podesta v Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs                 (Value added tax — First and Sixth VAT Directives —
          Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others (1)                         Deduction of input tax — Taxable person carrying out both
                                                                            taxable and exempt transactions — Attribution of input
(Social policy — Equal pay for men and women — Private,                     services to output transactions — Need for a direct and
inter-occupational, supplementary retirement pension sche-                                            immediate link)
me based on defined contributions and run on a ‘pay-as-you-
go’ basis— Survivors’ pensions for which the age conditions
                  for grant vary according to sex)                                                   (2000/C 233/20)
                           (2000/C 233/19)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         In Case C-98/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
                                                                            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                          proceedings pending before that court between Commissio-
                                                                            ners of Customs & Excise plc and Midland Bank plc — on the
In Case C-50/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of
de Grande Instance, Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the                  legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ,
proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Marie                    English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and Article 17(2), (3) and
Podesta and Caisse de Retraite par répartition des Ingénieurs               (5) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
Cadres & Assimilés (CRICA) and Others — on the interpreta-                  on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
tion of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of                to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC)              uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)— the Court
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                    (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rappor-                the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
teur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                 Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it has ruled:                           8 June 2000, in which it has ruled: