title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-456/00: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — State aid — Common organisation of the markets — Wine — Measures for adapting vineyards in Charentes)

text:
25.1.2003                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 19/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           conciliation procedure supervised and approved by a court; it
                                                                                must apply to members of the group disadvantaged by that
                                                                                discrimination the arrangements in force in respect of employees
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                        whose claims of the same type come, according to the national
                                                                                definition of ‘pay’, within the scope of that directive.
                       of 12 December 2002
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
in Case C-442/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La-Mancha):
Ángel Rodríguez Caballero v Fondo de Garantía Salarial
                               (Fogasa), (1)
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Scope — ‘Claims’ — ‘Pay’ — ‘Salarios de tramitación’ —                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Pay-
      ment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            (2003/C 19/08)
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            in Case C-456/00: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — State aid — Common organisation
                                                                            of the markets — Wine — Measures for adapting vineyards
                                                                                in Charentes)
In Case C-442/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La-Mancha                                           (2003/C 19/09)
(Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Ángel Rodríguez Caballero and
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa), on the interpretation of
Article 1 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October
1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
relating to the protection of employees in the event of the                                     in the European Court Reports)
insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
                                                                            In Case C-456/00, French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
                                                                            L. Bernheim) v Commission of the European Communities
2002, in which it:                                                          (Agent: A. Alves Vieira and D. Triantafyllou): Application for
                                                                            annulment of Commission Decision 2001/52/EC of 20 Sep-
1.    Claims in respect of ‘salarios de tramitación’ must be regarded       tember 2000 on the State aid implemented by France in the
      as employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment or          wine-growing sector (OJ 2001 L 17, p. 30), the Court (Sixth
      employment relationships and relating to pay, within the              Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
      meaning of Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of Council Directive 80/            Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
      987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
      laws of the Member States relating to the protection of               (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer,           Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in
      irrespective of the procedure under which they are determined,        which it:
      if, according to the national legislation concerned, such claims,
      when recognised by judicial decision, give rise to liability on the   1.    Dismisses the action;
      part of the guarantee institution and if a difference in treatment
      of identical claims acknowledged in a conciliation procedure is
      not objectively justified.                                            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2.    The national court must set aside national legislation which, in
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
      breach of the principle of equality, excludes from the concept of
      ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 80/987
      claims in respect of ‘salarios de tramitación’ agreed in a


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 June 2000 in Case C-455/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus): Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Tax on importation — Scope — Contraband importation of ethyl alcohol)

text:
C 302/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to assist EPAC —                 ation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on
Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA (OJ 1997                     unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) —
L 311, p. 25) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward,              L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-               J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragne-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                  malm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; A. Sag-
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                gio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which
given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:                             it held that:
1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Commission Decision         1.     The protection provided for consumers by Council Directive
      97/762/EC of 9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to                   93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer
      assist EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais,                    contracts entails the national court being able to determine of
      SA, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair
      under the Treaty;                                                           when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim
                                                                                should be allowed to proceed before the national courts.
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.     The national court is obliged, when it applies national law
                                                                                provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                          interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the
                                                                                wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an
                                                                                interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the
                                                                                national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that
                                                                                would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction
                                                                                conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 27 June 2000
in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
No 35 de Barcelona): Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rocı́o
Murciano Quintero (C240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José Luis
Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                                                           (First Chamber)
      (C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98) (1)
                                                                                of 29 June 2000
(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Jurisdiction clause — Power of the national court to
   examine of its own motion whether that clause is unfair)                in Case C-455/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus): Tullihallitus v Kaupo
                                                                                Salumets and Others (1)
                          (2000/C 302/07)
                                                                           (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
                                                                           — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Tax on importation — Scope — Contraband importation of
                                                                                ethyl alcohol)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2000/C 302/08)
In Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98: reference to the Court                                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No
35 de Barcelona, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
proceedings pending before that court between Océano Grupo
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Editorial SA v Rocı́o Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) and Salvat
Editores SA v José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José
Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                          In Case C-455/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98), on the interpret-          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 302/5
Käräjäoikeus, Finland, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-            in Turin (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and
ings pending before that court between Tullihallitus and Kaupo             V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Salumets and Others — on the interpretation of the Sixth                   Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the har-                    — appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of
monisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                    the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 9 February
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 1999 in Case T-124/98 Politi v European Training Foundation
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), Council Directive               [1999] ECR-SC I-A-9 and II-29, seeking to have that order set
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,                    Training Foundation, represented by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsan-
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,                    walt, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
p. 1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the               the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol                Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre,
and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) and Council                 Kirchberg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-                      D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1)                   A. La Pergola, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President             Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;              given a judgment on 29 June 2000, in which it:
M. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June                 1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2000, in which it has ruled:
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                   2.    Orders Mr Politi to pay the costs.
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on             (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, Council
Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as
meaning that their provisions on liability to tax and tax debts apply
also to contraband importation into Community customs territory of
ethyl alcohol from non-member countries.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                                of 4 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                           of 29 June 2000                                 Judgment of the Court establishing such failure — Non-
                                                                           compliance — Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article
in Case C-154/99 P: Corrado Politi v European Training                     228 EC) — Financial penalties — Periodic penalty payment
                            Foundation (1)                                      — Waste Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC)
(Appeal — Temporary staff — Time-limit for lodging
                                                                                (2000/C 302/10)
complaint — Time-limit for initiating proceedings — Error
                in classification — Admissibility)
                           (2000/C 302/09)                                                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-154/99 P: Corrado Politia former member of the                   In Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communities
temporary staff of the European Training Foundation, residing              (Agent: M. Condou-Durande), supported by United Kingdom


title: Case C-240/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 May 2017 — E

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 May 2017 — E
   (Case C-240/17)
   (2017/C 213/31)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E

      Other parties to the proceedings: Maahanmuuttovirasto

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 25(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to consult among Contracting States has legal effects that can be relied on by third-country national in a situation in which a Contracting State imposes an entry ban for the entire Schengen Area and order his return to his home country on the ground that he constitutes a threat to public order and public safety?

               2.

               If Article 25(2) of Convention applies to the imposition of an entry ban, must the consultations begin before the imposition of the entry ban or may the consultation start only after the imposition of the ban when the decision to deport that person and to impose an entry ban has been taken?

               3.

               If the consultations may begin only afterwards, when the decision to return that person and to impose an entry ban has been taken, does the fact that negotiations between Contracting States are on-going and that the other Contracting State has not indicated its intention to withdraw the residence permit of the third-country national prevent the decision to deport the third country national and the imposition of an entry ban with respect to the entire Schengen Area from taking effect?

               4.

               How is a Contracting State to proceed in circumstances in which the Contracting State which granted the residence permit, despite repeated requests, has not expressed its views regarding the withdrawal of the residence permit granted to a third country national?


title: Case T-130/00: Action brought on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna González del Valle against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.9.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/23
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Auditors of the European Communities — application for
                                                                          suspension of operation of the decision of 15 May 2000
                          of 28 June 2000                                 relieving the applicant from her position as team leader in the
                                                                          Italian section of the translation service — the President of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance made an order on 3 July 2000, the
in Case T-338/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer v Council of the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
                        European Union (1)
                                                                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(Retirement pension — Weighting — Action for annulment
                        — Inadmissibility)                                2.    The costs are reserved.
                          (2000/C 259/41)
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-338/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer, a former official of            Action brought on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna Gonzá-
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   lez del Valle against the Commission of the European
Munich (Germany), represented by H.J. Winzen and M. Anger-                                            Communities
maier, Rechtsanwälte, Munich, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Steil, 12 Rue d’Anvers, v                                          (Case T-130/00)
Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer and
P.M. Cossu) — application for a declaration that, by applying
to the calculation of the applicant’s pension a weighting for                                       (2000/C 259/43)
Germany which was not fixed on the basis of the cost of living
in Berlin, the Council has infringed the EC Treaty — the Court
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 28 June 2000, the operative part of which                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is as follows:                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;                            González del Valle, residing in Madrid, represented by José
                                                                          Marı́a Valoria de Arana, lawyer.
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          —     ‘partially’ annul the Commission’s decisions appointing
                                                                                the applicant initially as a probationer official (decision
                                                                                of 28 March 1989, taking effect from 1 March 1989) and
                                                                                subsequently as an official definitively classed in grade B3
                                                                                (decision of 14 November 1989, taking effect from
                                                                                1 December 1989), but only inasmuch as those decisions
                                                                                classified him in grade 3 of category B instead of grade 1,
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                    that being the grade corresponding to him;
                            INSTANCE
                                                                          —     declare that the applicant is entitled to pecuniary compen-
                           of 3 July 2000                                       sation corresponding to the remuneration which he
                                                                                would have received if, as should have happened, he had
in Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Audi-                          been appointed a grade B1 official, and which he did not
              tors of the European Communities                                  receive, during the period running from his appointment
                                                                                as a probationer official to the present time, together with
                                                                                interest at the statutory rate;
        (Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility)
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 259/42)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant in the present case contests his appointment in
In Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti, an official of the                 grade 3 of category B. He maintains in that connection that
Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in                that appointment must be regarded as erroneous, inasmuch
Luxembourg, represented by G. Vogel and F. Burg, of the                   as, having been called to attend interviews in competitions
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 COM/B/611 (B 1) and COM/B/612 (B 2/3), the applicant never
at the latter’s Chambers, 42 Boulevard Joseph II, v Court of              attended the interview corresponding to the latter competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
In support of his claim, the applicant asserts:                          —     order that the costs be borne by the defendant.
—    that it is not appropriate to take into consideration the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     fact that the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91
     of the Staff Regulations were not complied with, since,             The applicant claims that Article 1 of the contested decision
     first, the fact that the interview before the selection board       should be annulled in so far as it only declares Article 30(3) of
     in competition COM/B/612 did not take place and that
                                                                         Greek Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992 (Greek Government
     the applicant did not attend the medical examination                Gazette No A’ 70 of 23.4.1992) as incompatible with the
     specifically referable to that competition gave rise to an
                                                                         common market.
     overwhelming state of uncertainty and, second, what
     happened in the present case amounts a defect rendering
     the contested decisions not voidable but absolutely void;           This application is based on the following grounds:
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
—    that the applicant did not sit the test corresponding to                  on the part of the Commission in concluding that
     competition COM/B/612 but that relating to competition                    Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92, imposing on ginning
     COM/B/611, and that the medical examination which he                      plants the obligation to pay to the Greek Cotton Board a
     attended and passed satisfactorily was expressly referable                levy amounting to 1 % of the total purchase price paid to
     to grade B1 principal assistants;                                         the growers per kilogram of delivered unginned cotton
                                                                               grown in Greece, is consonant with the market organis-
                                                                               ation.
—    that it is one thing to enter into service on the date
     proposed and quite another thing to accept the grade                —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
     proposed.                                                                 on the part of the Commission in failing to declare
                                                                               Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 as incompatible with the
                                                                               common market.
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error on the part of the
                                                                               Commission in failing to analyse separately the compati-
                                                                               bility of Law 2040/92 in relation with the EC State aids
                                                                               discipline.
                                                                         —     In the contested decision, the Commission totally failed
                                                                               to provide sufficient reasoning for refusing to analyse the
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic Union                         compatibility of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 under the
of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the Commission                         EC State Aid rules.
                 of the European Communities
                                                                         —     Alternatively, the Commission has committed a violation
                                                                               of an essential procedural requirement by taking an
                          (Case T-148/00)                                      extraordinarily long time in concluding the formal investi-
                                                                               gation procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
                          (2000/C 259/44)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 63, p. 27.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters, represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Vassilis Akritidis and Juan                                      (Case T-152/00)
José Gutiérrez Gisbert of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/45)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of
     20 July 1999 (1) on an aid scheme applied in Greece to              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     cotton by the Greek Cotton Board, in so far as it only              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     declares Article 30(3) of Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992,              European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamani-
     and not Article 30(1) as well, as incompatible with the             dou, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersand-
     common market; and                                                  en, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Case C-543/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 27 — Annex VI, section R, point 1(a) and (b) — Concept of pensions payable under the legislation of two or more Member States — Benefits in kind — Retroactive award of a pension under the legislation of the Member State of residence — Enjoyment of health care benefits conditional on the taking out of compulsory health care insurance — Certificate of non-insurance under the legislation on compulsory health care insurance of the Member State of residence — No subsequent obligation to pay contributions to that Member State — Retroactive withdrawal of the certificate — No possibility of retroactive affiliation to compulsory health care insurance — Interruption of cover against the risk of sickness by such insurance — Effectiveness of Regulation No 1408/71)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens
   (Case C-543/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 27 - Annex VI, section R, point 1(a) and (b) - Concept of pensions payable under the legislation of two or more Member States - Benefits in kind - Retroactive award of a pension under the legislation of the Member State of residence - Enjoyment of health care benefits conditional on the taking out of compulsory health care insurance - Certificate of non-insurance under the legislation on compulsory health care insurance of the Member State of residence - No subsequent obligation to pay contributions to that Member State - Retroactive withdrawal of the certificate - No possibility of retroactive affiliation to compulsory health care insurance - Interruption of cover against the risk of sickness by such insurance - Effectiveness of Regulation No 1408/71))
   (2015/C 236/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

      Defendant: E. Fischer-Lintjens

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, in conjunction with section R, point 1(a) and (b), of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that the pension of a person entitled must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as payable from the commencement of the period in respect of which that pension was actually paid to that person, whatever the date on which the entitlement to that pension was formally confirmed, including, if appropriate, where the period commences before the date of the decision awarding the pension.
   Articles 27 and 84a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, in conjunction with section R, point 1(a) and (b) of Annex VI to that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State which does not allow the recipient of a pension awarded by that Member State with retroactive effect of one year to become affiliated to compulsory health care insurance with the same retroactive effect, and which has the effect of depriving that person of all social security cover without all the relevant circumstances, in particular those relating to that person’s personal situation, being taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case C-337/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Working conditions — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — Allowance in lieu in the event of sickness — Public servants (firemen))

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
   (Case C-337/10) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Working conditions - Organisation of working time - Right to paid annual leave - Allowance in lieu in the event of sickness - Public servants (firemen))
   2012/C 174/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georg Neidel

      Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Entitlement to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in full because of unfitness for service lasting for several years before retirement — Scope ratione personae of Directive 2003/88/EC — Public servants (firemen)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as applying to a public servant carrying out the activities of a fireman in normal circumstances.

               2.

               Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that a public servant is entitled, on retirement, to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was prevented from working by sickness.

               3.

               Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of national law conferring on a public servant an entitlement to further paid leave in addition to the entitlement to a minimum paid annual leave of four weeks, which do not provide for the payment of an allowance in lieu if a public servant who is retiring has been unable to use that additional entitlement because he was prevented from working by sickness.

               4.

               Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which restricts, by a carry-over period of nine months on expiry of which the entitlement to paid annual leave lapses, the right of a public servant who is retiring to cumulate the allowances in lieu of paid annual leave not taken because he was unfit for service.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven in the case of K. V. S. International BV v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Case C-301/98)

text:
C 312/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.10.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         to a semen collection centre as laid down in
                                                                            paragraph 1(b) of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive
Infringement of Community law, and in particular:                           88/407/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to question 1 is affirmative:
Ð disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice with
     regard to reinstatement following the termination of a
     period of leave on personal grounds: according to the             2. Should the transitional rule set out in Article 20 of
     Court of Justice, an institution is not obliged to                     Directive 88/407/EEC be construed as meaning that it
     reinstate an official on the first occasion that the                   is applicable by analogy to semen which was collected
     requirements of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations are                and processed prior to 1 July 1994?
     fulfilled if the official's conduct is such as to cast
     doubt on the seriousness of his intention to make                 If the answer to question 1 is affirmative and the answer
     himself available to the institution (2). The Court of            to question 2 negative:
     First Instance wrongly allowed itself to be guided by
     its own interpretation of Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff           3. Is Directive 93/60/EEC invalid as being contrary to
     Regulations of Officials (3), with the result that it made             general principles of law, in particular the principle of
     incomplete findings of fact and declined to accept                     the protection of legitimate expectations and the
     material evidence,                                                     principle of proportionality, in so far as that Directive
                                                                            does not provide for transitional measures to counter
Ð disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice with                    obstacles to intra-Community trade in the semen of
     regard to non-contractual liability: the Court of First                bulls which had already, in accordance with the
     Instance failed to take into account the extent to                     provisions then in force, been admitted to an approved
     which the respondent contributed to the delay in his                   semen collection centre before Directive 93/60/EEC
     reinstatement.                                                         was adopted?
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998, p. 25.                                        If the answer to question 1 is negative:
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 October 1977 in
    Joined Cases 126/75, 34/96 and 92/96 Giry v. Commission            4. The provision in Article 1(8) of Directive 93/60/EEC
    [1977] ECR 1937, paragraphs 7 and 20.
                                                                            amended the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(b)
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 1993 in Case
    T-40/90 Giordani v. Commission [1993] ECR II-721.
                                                                            of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 88/407/EEC
                                                                            (The animals may not previously have been kept in
                                                                            other herds of a lower status') to read The animals
                                                                            may not previously have been kept in one or more
                                                                            herds of a lower status'. Must this amendment be
                                                                            construed as being exclusively a clarification or as a
                                                                            substantive amendment to the requirements applying
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                       in regard to the admission of bovine animals to an
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven in the case of K. V. S.                       approved semen collection centre?
International BV v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
                           en Visserij                                 (1) OJ L 194, 22.7.1988, p. 10.
                        (Case C-301/98)                                (2) OJ L 186, 28.7.1993, p. 28.
                         (98/C 312/08)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 17 July 1998 from
the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven                          Appeal brought on 4 August 1998 by David T. Keeling
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry), which was               against the order made on 8 June 1998 by the Third
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1998, for a                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
preliminary ruling in the case of K. V. S. International BV            Communities in Case T-148/97 (1) between David T.
v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij                     Keeling and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and                                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Fisheries) on the following questions:                                                       (Case C-305/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 312/09)
1. Must Article 3(b) of Directive 88/407/EEC (1) be
     construed as meaning that semen from a bull which
     was admitted to an approved semen collection centre               An appeal against the order made on 8 June 1998 by the
     before the adoption of amending Directive 93/60/                  Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     EEC (2) on the ground that it satisfied the admission             European Communities in Case T-148/97 between David
     requirements in force at that time does not (any                  T. Keeling and the Office for Harmonisation in the
     longer) satisfy the condition set out in Article 3(b) of          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought
     the Directive if the animal in question fails, at the time        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     when certification of the semen is applied for, to                on 4 August 1998 by David T. Keeling, of Alicante, Spain,
     satisfy the amended requirement governing admission               represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, instructed by


title: Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-70/96)

text:
No C 210/20         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Mediocurso,                        — breach of essential procedural requirements of
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the             Article 6 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No"2950/83 inasmuch
        Commission of the European Communities                          as the Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                       ( Case T-70/96 )                                 comment ,
                         ( 96/C 210/48 )
                                                                    — assuming, as a working hypothesis, that the statement of
                                                                        reasons of the contested act consists of the letters from
            (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)                          Dafse which contain the financial report, audits, breach
                                                                        of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of
An action against the Commission of the European                        respect for acquired rights, of the principle of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       protection of legitimate expectations , of the principle
Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1996                     of proportionality, of the rules applicable to the
by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular,                    management of the European Social Fund and of the
Limitada, whose registered office is in Lisbon , represented            earlier act approving the contribution in question .
by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue ,
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Mediocurso,
                                                                    Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the
— annul the act of the Commission of the European
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities
    Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit Note ',
    reference No 95005690 E, ordering the applicant to                                       ( Case T-72/96 )
    repay Esc 1 482 209 in the context of a training                                           ( 96/C 210/49 )
    operation financed by the European Social Fund, file
    No 890583 PI ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
    proceedings .                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments                                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1 996
                                                                    by Mediocurso , Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular,
The applicant, a commercial company which in 1988                   Limitada , whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented
                                                                    by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
submitted to the European Social Fund ( ESF ), through
Dafse, various requests for contributions to training               Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue ,
operations which it intended to carry out during 1989 , is
seeking the annulment of the act of the Commission of the           Luxembourg.
European Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit
Note', reference No 95005690 E, ordering the applicant to           The applicant claims that the Court should :
repay Esc 1 482 209 in the context of a training operation
financed by the European Social Fund, file No 890583 PI on
                                                                    — annul the act of the Commission of the European
the following grounds :                                                 Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit Note ',
                                                                        reference No 95005645 F, ordering the applicant to
— lack of competence, inasmuch as the author of the act                 repay Esc 1 271 245 in the context of a training
    has no power to make a decision in the name of the                  operation financed by the European Social Fund , File
    Commission as regards payment claims for the balance                No 890588 PI ,
    submitted by bodies entitled to ESF contributions,
                                                                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
— infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty inasmuch                 proceedings .
    as it completely lacks a statement of reasons,
— breach of the principle of giving the interested parties an       Pleas in law and main arguments
    opportunity to be heard beforehand , inasmuch as it was
    adopted without having given the applicant the                  The applicant, a commercial company which in 1988
    opportunity to comment on its content,                          submitted to the European Social Fund ( ESF ), through
                                                                    Dafse , various requests for contributions to training
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate           operations which it intended to carry out during 1989 , is
    expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for               seeking the annulment of the act of the Commission of the
    payment of the balance relating to the file in question         European Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit
    was submitted in time , the Commission did not adopt            Note ', reference No 95005645 F, ordering the applicant to
    within a reasonable period a decision thereon ,                 repay Esc 1 271 245 in the context of a training operation


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 December 1996 in Case C-302/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)): The Queen v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: British Telecommunications plc (Telecommunications - Directive on open network provision - Special or exclusive rights - Directive on leased lines - Provision of a minimum set of leased lines)

text:
22 . 2 . 97           EN [                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M.
                     of 3 December 1996                               Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H.
                                                                      von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
in Case C-268/94 Portuguese Republic v. Council of the                3 December 1996 in which it :
                     European Union ( ! )
(Cooperation Agreement between the European                           1 . dismisses the application;
Community and the Republic of India — Development
cooperation — Respect for human rights and democratic
principles — Cooperation in the fields of energy, tourism,            2 . orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;
culture, drug abuse control and protection of intellectual
property — Competence of the Community — Legal                        3 . orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic
                              basis)                                       Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                         ( 97/C 54/01 )                                    Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities to bear their own costs.
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      (■) OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In case C-268/94: Portuguese Republic ( Agents : Joao
Mota de Campos, Luis Fernandes and Maria Luisa                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Duarte, supported by the Hellenic Republic ( Agents :                                      of 12 December 1996
Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Georgios Karipsiadis ) v.
Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jorge Monteiro               in Case C-302/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
and Antonio Tanca ), supported by the Kingdom of                      the High Court of Justice ( Queen's Bench Division )): The
Denmark ( Agent: Peter Biering), the United Kingdom of                Queen v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey                             parte: British Telecommunications pic (')
Nicoll ) and by the Commission of the European
                                                                      (Telecommunications — Directive on open network
Communities ( Agents: Claire Bury and Ana Maria Alves                 provision — Special or exclusive rights — Directive on
Vieira ) — application for annulment of Council Decision               leased lines — Provision of a minimum set of leased lines)
94/578/EC of 18 July 1994 concerning the conclusion of
the Cooperation Agreement between the European                                                    ( 97/C 54/02 )
Community and the Republic of India on partnership and
development ( OJ No L 223 , 27. 8 . 1994, p. 23 ) — the                              (Language of the case: English)
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ) ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.         In Case C-302/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                      of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice ( Queen's
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/2             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between the Queen                                          (Fifth Chamber)
and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte:
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
British Telecommunications pic — on the interpretation
of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June                 1990        in Case C-3/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
on     the   establishment    of    the  internal   market    for      the Landgericht Dortmund ): Reisebiiro Broede v. Gerd
telecommunications services through the implementation                                                Sandker ( 1 )
of open network provision ( OJ No L 192, 24 . 7. 1990,
p. 1 ) and on the interpretation and validity of Council               (Freedom to provide services — Judicial recovery of debts
Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of                     — Authorization — Article 59 of the EC Treaty)
open network provision to leased lines ( OJ No L 165 ,                                              ( 97/C 54/03 )
19 . 6 . 1992 , p. 27 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini and J. C.                                (Language of the case: German)
Moitinho de Almeida ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
Kakouris, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G.                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Tesauro, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                       published in the European Court Reports)
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 In Case C-3/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty by the Landgericht ( Regional Court )
                                                                       Dortmund ( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court between Reisebiiro
                                                                       Broede and Gerd Sandker on the interpretation of the
1 . Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the                  provisions of the EC Treaty relating to freedom to provide
     application of open network provision to leased lines             services, in particular Article 59 — the Court ( Fifth
     applies to telecomunications organizations within the             Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     meaning of Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 90/387/            President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward
     EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the                   ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fenelly,
     internal market for telecommunications services
                                                                       Advocate-General ; H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator,
     through the implementation of open network                        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
    provision. Inter alia, the two undertakings to which a             1996 , in which it has ruled :
     Member State has reserved, otherwise than according
     to objective, proportional and non-discriminatory
     criteria, the operation of international and in                   Article 59 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a national
    particular intra- Community telecommunications lines               rule which prohibits an undertaking established in another
     and likewise the undertaking to which a Member State              Member State from securing judicial recovery of debts
     has reserved, on the same terms, the operation of a               owed to others on the ground that the exercise of that
    public telecommunications network in part of its                   activity in a professional capacity is reserved to the legal
     territory constitute telecommunications organizations             profession.
     within the meaning of that provision. A Member State
     is entitled to impose the obligations laid down in                (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
    Article 7 of Directive 92/44/EEC on only some
     telecommunications          organizations,     since    the
     imposition of those obligations is sufficient to make
    available to users throughout the national territory a
     minimum number of leased lines complying with the
    specifications laid down by that Directive. In                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    particular, a Member State is entitled to impose the                                          ( First Chamber)
     obligations laid down in that provision on only those
     telecommunications organizations which are the                                          of 12 December 1996
    principal operators of telecommuncations lines in each             in Case C-38/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     of the geographical areas comprising its territory.               the Corte d'Appello di Ancona ): Ministero delle Finanze v.
                                                                                Foods Import Srl ( ] )
                                                                       (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Fish of
                                                                                the Molva molva kind)
2 . Examination of the questions referred for a
    preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor capable of                                           ( 97/C 54/04 )
    affecting the validity of Directive 92/44/EEC.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-38/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty by the Corte d'Appello di Ancona, for a


title: Case T-196/11: Action brought on 12 April 2012 — AX v Council

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/19

         Action brought on 12 April 2012 — AX v Council
   (Case T-196/11)
   2012/C 165/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AX (Polotsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Regulation No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2011/174/CFSP of 21 March 2011 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation No 271/2011 of 21 March 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, in so far as concerns the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its action.

               1.

               The first plea, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the defence, since the reasons given for the contested measures do not enable the applicant to contest the validity of the measures before the General Court or the latter to review the lawfulness of the measures.

               2.

               The second plea, alleging error of assessment, since there is no factual justification for the contested measures.

               3.

               The third plea, alleging failure to have regard to the principle of proportionality, in particular with regard to the restriction on entry into and transit within the territory of the European Union.


title: Case C-163/05: Action brought on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/20

         Action brought on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-163/05)
   (2005/C 132/37)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ramón Vidal Puig, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Directive 2002/7/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 9 March 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 67, p. 47.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État in Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Directive 90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the environment — Request for information — Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal — Mandatory time-limit — Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply — Implied refusal — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 April 2005
   in Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État in Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (1)

   (Directive 90/313/EEC - Freedom of access to information on the environment - Request for information - Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal - Mandatory time-limit - Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply - Implied refusal - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)
   (2005/C 171/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-186/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decision of 1 April 2004, received at the Court on 22 April 2004, in the proceedings between Pierre Housieaux and Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale interested parties: — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The two-month time-limit laid down in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment is mandatory.

               2.

               The decision referred to in Article 4 of Directive 90/313, against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought by the person who made the request for information, is the implied refusal which arises from the failure by the public authority competent to decide on that request to respond within two months.

               3.

               Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof, does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, national legislation according to which, for the purposes of granting effective judicial protection, the failure of a public authority to respond within a period of two months is deemed to give rise to an implied refusal which may be the subject of a judicial or administrative review in accordance with the national legal system. However, by virtue of Article 3(4) it is unlawful for such a decision not to be accompanied by reasons when the two-month time-limit expires. In those circumstances, the implied refusal must be regarded as unlawful.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.


title: Case T-25/17: Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Action brought on 17 January 2017 — Rintisch v EUIPO — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
   (Case T-25/17)
   (2017/C 063/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé Sur Vire, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 981 041 in respect of the word mark ‘PROTICURD’

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2016 in Case R 247/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


C 83/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      5.4.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-43/01 (1)                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                           T-288/01: OPI Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in
                          (2003/C 83/59)                                   the Internal Market.
                    (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
By order of 10 January 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-43/01: Jean-Jacques Rateau v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-192/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/61)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
        Removal from the register of Case T-288/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Fourth
                          (2003/C 83/60)                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the Case: English)                         T-192/02: G.D. Searle LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                           Internal Market.
By order of 7 January 2003 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Cases T-54/00 and T-73/00: Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — Exchange of fishing quotas — Transfer of anchovy fishing quota allocated to Portugal — Application for annulment — Objection of illegality — Admissibility)

text:
C 44/14                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16.2.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                3.     The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Council.
                      of 19 September 2001                                4.     The Commission shall bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000 and OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
in Cases T-54/00 and T-73/00: Federación de Cofradı́as de
Pescadores de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
(Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — Exchange
of fishing quotas — Transfer of anchovy fishing quota
                                                                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
allocated to Portugal — Application for annulment —
                                                                                INSTANCE
            Objection of illegality — Admissibility)
                                                                                of 8 October 2001
                          (2002/C 44/25)
                                                                          in Case T-236/00 R II: Gabriele Stauner and Others v
                                                                          European Parliament and Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                   Communities
                                                                          (Proceedings for interim relief — Framework agreement
                                                                          on relations between the European Parliament and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities — Article 197
                                                                          EC — Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure —
In Case T-54/00: Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de                                           Admissibility)
Guipúzcoa, established in San Sebastián (Spain), Federación de
Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, established in Bilbao
(Spain), Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Cantabria,                                       (2002/C 44/26)
established in Santander (Spain), and 59 other applicants and
Case T-73/00: Nicólas Martı́nez Rey y otro CB, established                                   (Language of the case: German)
in Ares, La Coruña (Spain), Porvenir Número Cuatro, SL,
established in Riviera, La Coruña (Spain), and Hermanos Deza,
SL, established in Sanxenxo, Pontevedra (Spain), represented
by J.R. Garcı́a-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domı́nguez Pérez,            In Case T-236/00 R II: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfrats-
lawyers, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                   hausen (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Den-
J. Carbery, I. Diez Parra and M. Sims-Robertson), supported by            mark), Heide Rühle, residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Esko
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van                    Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki (Finland), Bart Staes,
Rijn and J. Guerra Fernández) — application, in both cases, for          residing in Antwerp (Belgium), Members of the European
the annulment of the ninth heading of Annex I D of Council                Parliament, represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers,
Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999, fixing                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions              Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M. Berger) and the
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in          Commission of European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters                    and X. Lewis) — application brought under Articles 108 and
where limitations in catch are required, and amending Regu-               109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
lation (EC) No 66/98 (OJ L 341, 1999, p. 1) and, second,                  for, first, the suspension of operation of points 3.2, first indent,
annulment of point 1.1, (i) of Annex IV of Council Regulation             and 3.3 of Annex III to the Framework Agreement on Relations
(EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the                  between the European Parliament and the Commission con-
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and            cluded on 5 July 2000 between the European Parliament and
resources (OJ L 71, 1995, p. 5) &mdash, the Court of First                the Commission of the European Communities (OJ C 121,
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,                2001, p. 122) and, secondly, for the adoption of other interim
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an            measures — the President of the Court of First Instance made
order on 19 September 2001, the operative part of which is                an order on 8 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
as follows:                                                               follows:
                                                                          1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
1.    The actions in Cases T-54/00 and Case T-73/00 are to be
      joined for the purposes of the order.
                                                                          2.     Costs are reserved.
2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-355/16: Action brought on 1 July 2016 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/40

         Action brought on 1 July 2016 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (MULTI FRUITS)
   (Case T-355/16)
   (2016/C 296/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MULTI FRUITS’ — Application for registration No 13 646 542

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 in Case R 1043/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the ground of appeal and annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01: References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di L'Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)

text:
29.9.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 275/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                       territory (Thuringia) which, under the direction of the
Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of                       manager of the holding, has been produced from its cows
Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assuran-                        installed in leased facilities in the accession territory
ces against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                         (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)?
                            Finance)
                        (Case C-266/01)                                 2.    Or is the milk quantity thus acquired to be imputed to
                                                                              the provisionally allocated reference quantity of the
                        (2001/C 275/08)                                       lessor farmer who is himself partly producing and the
                                                                              provisionally allocated milk reference quantity withdrawn
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        in favour of Thuringia where, as in this case, federal land
European Communities, by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                        borders divide the part of the holding to which the
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 May                      reference quantity was allocated from the part of the
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July                      holding in which the milk is produced and, in contradis-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Préservatrice                   tinction to the situation in the Ballmann case, cited above,
Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assurances v the State of the                 the holding or part of the holding to which the milk
Netherlands (Ministry of Finance) on the following questions:                 reference quantity was provisionally allocated is maintai-
1.    Is a claim lodged by the State under a private-law contract             ned only, as it were, as the holding’s head office and
      of suretyship which it has concluded in fulfilment of a                 produces and delivers only a proportion of less than
      condition determined by it pursuant to Article 6(1) of the              5 % of the milk reference quantity (dairy herd/milk
      1975 TIR Convention, and therefore in exercise of its                   production)?
      public powers, to be regarded as a civil or commercial
      matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels            3.    Is it material to the reply to these questions that the
      Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of                       holding producing the milk was formerly in the territory
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters?                              of the GDR but that this territory was transferred to
                                                                              Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) by state treaty between
2.    Must proceedings which are brought by the State and                     the two länder of the Federal Republic of Germany known
      which have as their subject-matter a private-law contract               as Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?
      of suretyship be regarded as a customs matter within the
      meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention on
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil            (1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
      and Commercial Matters, on the ground that pleas may              (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 73.
      be put forward by the defendant which necessitate an              (3) ECR I-25 [1991].
      investigation into, and a ruling on, the existence and
      content of the customs debts to which that contract
      relates?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
gericht Weimar by order of that court of 23 May 2001                    L’Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora
in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v                   Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of
                      Freistaat Thüringen                                  Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)
                                                                                (Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01)
                        (Case C-268/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/10)
                        (2001/C 275/09)
                                                                        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 orders of 20 June 2001 by the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Tribunale di L’Aquila (District Court, L’Aquila), which were
(Administrative Court), Weimar, of 23 May 2001, which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for preliminary
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        rulings in the cases of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli and
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v
                                                                        Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile on the following
Freistaat Thüringen on the following questions:
                                                                        questions:
1.    Is Article 9(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
      (amended by Regulation (EC) No 1256/99 (2)), or other             (1) Is the provision of binding minimum tariffs contrary to
      provisions concerning guaranteed quantities of milk, to                 free competition on the ground that it prevents the free
      be interpreted, by reference to Case C-341/89                           fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as provided for under
      Ballmann (3), as meaning that in the case of a holding or               Article 81(1)(a) EC, and does it also have the effect
      part of a holding in the territory of the former GDR a                  of reinforcing the compartmentalisation of markets at
      milk quantity is also to be imputed to the reference                    national level, thereby hindering the economic integration
      quantity provisionally allocated to it in the accession                 intended by the Treaty?
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
      Lawyers who are nationals of other EC Member States              No 729/70 (2) and Article 23 of Regulation No 4523/88 (3),
      and who work in Italy are also required under Article 13         under which the Member State can and must take the measures
      of the Law of 9 February 1982 to comply with the tariff          necessary to prevent and take action against irregularities and
      for legal fees and thus also with the rule prohibiting           recover amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence,
      differentiation of amounts below a specified minimum             applicable in this context as well?
      level.
(2) Are Articles 633(1)(2) and 636(1) of the Italian Code of           (1) OJ 1997 L 53 p. 30.
      Civil Procedure, under which a lawyer is authorised to           (2) OJ 1970 L 94 p. 13.
      have his fees determined by the Council of the order to          (3) OJ 1988 L 374 p. 1.
      which he belongs through the adoption of an opinion
      binding on his client and on the court (in enforcement
      proceedings), allowing him to obtain entitlement based
      on that unilateral determination of the professional
      fee pursuant to the abovementioned minimum tariffs,
      contrary to free competition on the ground that they
      prevent the free fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as
      provided for under Article 81(1)(a) EC, by reserving such
      determination to a body consisting exclusively of lawyers?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                       Schleswig by order of 5 July 2001 in proceedings involv-
                                                                       ing the imposition of a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt
                                                                                Steffensen
                                                                                (Case C-276/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                                           (2001/C 275/12)
Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001,
in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS)          European Communities by order of 5 July 2001 by the
           and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)                     Amtsgericht Schleswig (Local Court, Schleswig), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling, in proceedings involving the imposition of
                        (Case C-271/01)                                a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt Steffensen, on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 275/11)
                                                                       1.    Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June
                                                                             1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) to be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       construed as conferring on the manufacturer of a product
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                      a directly applicable right to apply for a second opinion
(Council of State), Sixth Section, of 8 May 2001, received at                in the case where public authorities have taken from a
the Court Registry on 9 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in               retail outlet a sample of the manufacturer’s product for
the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali                   purposes of analysis and that sample has failed to satisfy
(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) against CO.P.P.I., Società            certain criteria imposed by the legislation on foodstuffs?
Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi
(IBIESSE) on the following question:                                   2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                             is Article 7(1) of that directive to be construed as giving
Does Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 (1) of                 rise to a Community-law prohibition on the use of
15 February 1977 — which provides that the Commission,                       findings based on samples removed by public authorities
after consulting the Fund Committee on the financial aspects,                where it has not been made possible for the manufacturer
may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in                    of the product which is the subject of criticism in those
Article 22, to suspend, reduce or discontinue aid from the                   findings to apply for a second opinion?
Fund, and to recover sums paid, if, inter alia, prior to expiry of
the period laid down therein, the beneficiary sells equipment
or buildings having received aid from the Fund without prior
authorization from the Commission — constitute a standard              (1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.
procedure which excludes the Member State’s competence to
adopt such measures to discontinue aid and recover sums
paid, or are the principles laid down in Article 8 of Regulation