title: Joined Cases C-162/08 to C-164/08: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis — Greece) — Georgios K. Lagoudakis v Kentro Aniktis Prostasias Ilikiomenon Dimou Rethimnis (C-162/08), Dimitros G. Ladakis, Andreas M. Birtas, Konstantinos G. Kiriakopoulos, Emmanouil V. Klamponis, Sofoklis E. Mastorakis v Dimos Geropotamou (C-163/08) and Mikhail Zakharioudakis v Dimos Lampis (C-164/08) (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 5 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — First or single use of a contract — Successive contracts — Equivalent legal measure — Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers — Measures intended to prevent abuse — Penalties — Absolute prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indefinite duration in the public sector — Consequences of the incorrect transposition of a directive — Interpretation in conformity with Community law)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis — Greece) — Georgios K. Lagoudakis v Kentro Aniktis Prostasias Ilikiomenon Dimou Rethimnis (C-162/08), Dimitros G. Ladakis, Andreas M. Birtas, Konstantinos G. Kiriakopoulos, Emmanouil V. Klamponis, Sofoklis E. Mastorakis v Dimos Geropotamou (C-163/08) and Mikhail Zakharioudakis v Dimos Lampis (C-164/08)
   (Joined Cases C-162/08 to C-164/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 5 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - First or single use of a contract - Successive contracts - Equivalent legal measure - Reduction in the general level of protection afforded to workers - Measures intended to prevent abuse - Penalties - Absolute prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of indefinite duration in the public sector - Consequences of the incorrect transposition of a directive - Interpretation in conformity with Community law)
   2010/C 63/25
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Georgios K. Lagoudakis (C-162/08), Dimitros G. Ladakis, Andreas M. Birtas, Konstantinos G. Kiriakopoulos, Emmanouil V. Klamponis, Sofoklis E. Mastorakis (C-163/08), Mikhail Zakharioudakis (C-164/08)

      Defendants: Kentro Aniktis Prostasias Ilikiomenon Dimou Rethimnis (C-162/08), Dimos Geropotamou (C-163/08), Dimos Lampis (C-164/08),

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnis — Interpretation of clauses 5 and 8(1) and (3) of the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Prohibition against adopting national measures in the guise of transposition where an equivalent national measure within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already exists and the new measures reduce the level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers

      Operative part

               1.

               Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption by a Member State of national legislation, such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004 laying down provisions concerning workers employed under fixed-term contracts in the public sector, which, for the purposes specifically of transposing Directive 1999/70 so as to implement the provisions of that directive in the public sector, provides for the implementation of the measures to prevent the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships which are listed in clause 5(1)(a) to (c) where — which it is for the national court to ascertain — an ‘equivalent legal measure’ within the meaning of that clause already exists under national law, such as Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920 on compulsory notice of termination of contracts of employment of employees in the private sector, provided, however, that that legislation (i) does not affect the effectiveness of the prevention of the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships resulting from that equivalent legal measure, and (ii) complies with Community law and, in particular, with clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement.

               2.

               Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the authorities of the Member State concerned in such a way that the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector is deemed to be justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause solely on the ground that those contracts are founded on legal provisions allowing them to be renewed in order to meet certain temporary needs when, in fact, those needs are fixed and permanent. By contrast, clause 5(1)(a) does not apply to the first or single use of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship.

               3.

               Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reduction’ with which that clause is concerned must be considered in relation to the general level of protection applicable in the Member State concerned both to workers who have entered into successive fixed-term employment contracts and to workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract.

               4.

               Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004, which, unlike an earlier rule of domestic law such as Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920, (i) no longer provides for fixed-term employment contracts to be recognised as contracts of indefinite duration where abuse arises from the use of such contracts in the public sector, or which makes such recognition subject to certain cumulative and restrictive conditions, and (ii) excludes from the benefit of the protection measures provided workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract, where — which it is for the national court to ascertain — such amendments relate to a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract or are offset by the adoption of measures to prevent the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.

               5.

               However, the implementation of the Framework Agreement by national legislation such as Presidential Decree No 164/2004 cannot have the effect of reducing the protection previously applicable, under the domestic legal order, to fixed-term workers to a level below that set by the minimum protective provisions laid down by the Framework Agreement. In particular, compliance with clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement requires that such legislation should provide, in respect of the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, effective and binding measures to prevent such misuse and penalties which are sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that those preventive measures are fully effective. It is therefore for the referring court to establish that those conditions are fulfilled.

               6.

               In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that, where the domestic law of the Member State concerned includes, in the sector under consideration, other effective measures to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of clause 5(1) of that agreement, it does not preclude the application of a rule of national law which prohibits absolutely, in the public sector only, the conversion into a contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts which, having been intended to cover fixed and permanent needs of the employer, must be regarded as constituting an abuse. It is none the less for the referring court to determine to what extent the conditions for application and effective implementation of the relevant provisions of domestic law constitute a measure adequate for the prevention and, where relevant, the punishment of the misuse by the public authorities of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.

               7.

               By contrast, since clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement is not applicable to workers who have entered into a first or single fixed-term employment contract, that provision does not require the Member States to adopt penalties where such a contract does in fact cover fixed and permanent needs of the employer.

               8.

               It is for the national court to interpret the relevant provisions of national law, so far as possible, in conformity with clauses 5(1) and 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, and also to determine, in that context, whether an ‘equivalent legal measure’ within the meaning of clause 5(1), such as that provided for in Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920, must be applied to the main proceedings in place of certain other provisions of domestic law.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-281/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark CHROMA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer v OHIM (CHROMA)
   (Case T-281/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark CHROMA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 46/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Frechen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 May 2009 (Case R 1429/2008-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign CHROMA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case C-85/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société des produits Nestlé SA

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/5

         Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société des produits Nestlé SA
   (Case C-85/17 P)
   (2017/C 178/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd (represented by: T. Mitcheson QC, Barrister, P. Walsh, J. Blum and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société des produits Nestlé SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the following parts of the General Court’s decision in Case T-112/13:

                           1)

                           The reasoning regarding the second part of the first plea in law set out in paragraphs 37-44;

                           2)

                           The reasoning regarding the first part of the first plea in law set out in paragraphs 58-64;

                           3)

                           The reasoning regarding the third part of the first plea in law at paragraphs 78-111; and

                           4)

                           The reasoning regarding the fourth part at paragraphs 144-169 and the portion of paragraph 177 that reads ‘Although it had been established that the contested trade mark had acquired distinctive character through use in Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               The Court erred in law in relation to its reasoning regarding the second part of the first plea in law set out in paragraphs 37-44. The second part relates to the use of the Mark in respect of all of the goods for which it was registered. The General Court fell into error when it found that use in trade in respect of a chocolate bar consisting of four trapezoid shaped fingers could be classified as a sweet or biscuit.

               2)

               The Court erred in law in relation to its reasoning regarding the first part of the first plea in law set out in paragraphs 58-64. The first part relates to use of the Mark in the form in which it was registered. Mondelez contends the Mark has not been used at all in the form in which it is registered. The General Court applied the wrong legal tests in: (i) not putting sufficient weight on its finding that the bar was a shape which naturally comes into the mind for the goods in question; and (ii) relying on a ‘spontaneous and immediate association’ made between the shape with the word KIT KAT contrary to the guidance in Case C-215/14 Société des Produits Nestlé, EU:C:2015:604 (‘Case C-215/14’).

               3)

               The Court erred in law in relation to its reasoning regarding the third part of the first plea in law set out in paragraphs 78-111. The third part relates to lack of use of the Mark as an indicator of origin and the evidence provided in that regard. The General Court applied the wrong legal test in relying on the findings of recognition or association. The correct approach is to ask whether the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by the mark applied for, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular company in accordance with the CJEU’s reasoning in Case C-215/14.

               4)

               The Court erred in law in relation to its reasoning regarding the fourth part of the first plea in law set out in paragraphs 144-169 and in the portion of paragraph 177 that reads ‘Although it had been established that the contested trade mark had acquired distinctive character through use in Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom’. The fourth part relates to the lack of proof of distinctive character acquired through use of the Mark throughout the European Union. The General Court was correct to find that Nestlé had not demonstrated that the Mark had acquired distinctive character throughout the whole of the EU and Mondelez does not wish to disturb that decision. However, Mondelez does not accept that Nestlé has at any time established acquired distinctiveness for the Goods in 10 Member States of the EU or at all. The General Court has erred in applying the wrong legal test in respect of each Member State in question as neither recognition, attribution nor association equate to perception by the relevant consumers of the Mark as denoting origin, as required by the test laid down by the CJEU in Case C-215/14.


title: Case C-7/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Assignment of a claim — Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt — Conditions governing the exercise of that right)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/17

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL v María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz
   (Case C-7/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Assignment of a claim - Right of the debtor to extinguish his debt - Conditions governing the exercise of that right))
   (2016/C 343/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Banco Popular Español SA, PL Salvador SARL

      Defendants: María Rita Giráldez Villar, Modesto Martínez Baz

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the right of the person owing a debt that has been assigned by the creditor to a third party to extinguish his debt by reimbursing to that third party the price paid by the latter in respect of that assignment.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case T-377/02: Action brought on 17 December 2002 by "P" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 14 January 2002 to
      retire the applicant on an invalidity pension set in                The applicant is an official of the Commission and worked in
      accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of the            the Berlaymont building, where he was exposed to asbestos.
      Staff Regulations;                                                  In 2001 the applicant asked to be given an invalidity pension
                                                                          on the basis of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. That request
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                 was refused by the Commission.
      pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims, first, that in rejecting his complaint the
                                                                          Commission misconstrued the facts which led to the appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           cant’s complaining about the malfunctioning of the Invalidity
                                                                          Committee as a result of linguistic problems.
The applicant is an official of the Commission. The contested
decision forced the applicant into retirement with the benefit            The applicant also alleges that the principles of sound adminis-
of an invalidity pension set in accordance with the third                 tration and the administration’s duty to have regard to the
paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.                         welfare of officials were breached, as were the principle of the
                                                                          protection of legitimate expectations, the rights of the defence
                                                                          and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In support of his application, the applicant alleged infringe-            The applicant complains of irregularities in the procedure
ment of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and                before the Invalidity Committee such as the abandonment of
infringement of the provisions relating to the operation of               scheduled medical examinations, the problem of communi-
the Invalidity Committees. According to the applicant, the                cation and the absence of a lawyer at the meeting of the
Invalidity Committee was not properly formed. The applicant               Invalidity Committee.
also argues a breach of the duty to state reasons.
Action brought on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’ against the                     Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Antonio Andol-
         Commission of the European Communities                            fi against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-377/02)                                                          (Case T-379/02)
                         (2003/C 44/72)                                                            (2003/C 44/73)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’, rep-
                                                                          European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Antonio
resented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitiia, lawyer.
                                                                          Andolfi, represented by Salvatore Amato, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2002
      replying to the complaint lodged on 5 July 2002 by the              —     annul the contested provision;
      applicant on the basis of Article 90 of the Staff Regu-
      lations of Officials and Other Servants of the European             —     order the European Economic Community to compensate
      Communities;                                                              the damages suffered and to be suffered by Seven Stars
                                                                                Pictures and Phoenix European S.r.l., to be liquidated in
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.              the course of the proceedings, together with clerical costs.


title: Case T-202/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014  — Al Assad v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures — Personal ties to members of the regime — Rights of the defence — Fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to privacy)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Al Assad v Council
   (Case T-202/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Personal ties to members of the regime - Rights of the defence - Fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy))
   2014/C 129/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part, first, of Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103); secondly, of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); thirdly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27); and, fourthly, of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts relate to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Bouchra Al Assad to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 February 1999 in Case C-167/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Regina v. Secretary of State for Employment (Men and women - Equal pay - Equal treatment - Compensation for unfair dismissal - Definition of pay - Right of a worker not to be unfairly dismissed - Whether falling under Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive 76/207/EEC - Legal test for determining whether a national measure constitutes indirect discrimination for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty - Objective justification)

text:
C 100/4               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 3. Community law precludes a Member State from
                                                                        making repayment of customs duties and taxes
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                  contrary to Community law subject to a condition,
                                                                        such as the requirement that such duties or taxes have
                     of 9 February 1999
                                                                        not been passed on to third parties, which the plaintiff
in Case C-343/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               must show he has satisfied.
the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata
di Vipiteno (Italy)): Dilexport Srl v. Amministrazione delle
                    Finanze dello Stato (1)
                                                                    4. Community law does not preclude the imposition, in
(Internal taxes contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty Ð                  the case of claims for repayment of customs duties or
Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð National rules of                   taxes contrary to Community law, of the non-
                          procedure)                                    retroactive requirement which, if not fulfilled, renders
                                                                        the claim inadmissible, that notice thereof is to be
                       (1999/C 100/05)                                  given ot the tax authority which received the tax
                                                                        return of the person concerned for the year in
                                                                        question.
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-343/96: Reference to the Court under
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale
di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Vipiteno (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Dilexport Srl and Amministrazione delle
Finanze dello Stato on the interpretation of Community                                   of 9 February 1999
law relating to sums paid but not due Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                    in Case C-167/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur,
                                                                    the House of Lords): Regina v. Secretary of State for
President of the Chamber), C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
                                                                                Employment (1)
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges, D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General, D. Louterman-                     (Men and women Ð Equal pay Ð Equal treatment Ð
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             Compensation for unfair dismissal Ð Definition of pay'
given a judgment on 9 February 1999, in which it has                Ð Right of a worker not to be unfairly dismissed Ð
ruled:                                                              Whether falling under Article 119 of the EC Treaty or
                                                                    Directive 76/207/EEC Ð Legal test for determining
                                                                    whether a national measure constitutes indirect
1. Community law does not preclude national provisions              discrimination for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC
    from making repayment of customs duties or taxes                              Treaty Ð Objective justification)
    contrary to Community law subject to less favourable
    time-limits and procedural conditions than those laid                                 (1999/C 100/06)
    down for actions between private individuals for
    recovery of sums paid but not due, provided that those
    conditions apply in the same way to actions for
    repayment which are based on Community law and to                              (Language of the case: English)
    those based on national law and do not make it
    impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right
    to repayment.
                                                                    In case C-167/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty by the House of Lords (United Kingdom)
2. Community law does not preclude the adoption by a                for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
    Member State, following judgments of the Court                  that court, Regina v. Secretary of State for Employment,
    declaring duties or charges to be contrary to                   ex parte Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez, on the
    Community law, of provisions which render the                   interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council
    conditions for repayment applicable to those duties             Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    and charges less favourable than those which would              implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    otherwise have been applied, provided that the duties           men and women as regards access to employment,
    and charges in question are not specifically targeted by        vocational training and promotion, and working
    that amendment and the new provisions do not make               conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,
    it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the          composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.
    right to repayment.                                             Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/5
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, (Rapporteur)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet,                                       (First Chamber)
R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, G. Cosmas,
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                                          of 9 February 1999
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            in Case C-280/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
9 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                              the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): ROSE Elektrotechnik
                                                                          GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln (1)
1. A judicial award of compensation for breach of the                (Combined nomenclature Ð Tariff headings Ð Junction
    right not to be unfairly dismissed constitutes pay                              box without cables or contacts)
    within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (1999/C 100/07)
2. The conditions determining whether an employee is
    entitled, where he has been unfairly dismissed, to                              (Language of the case: German)
    obtain compensation fall within the scope of
    Article 119 of the Treaty. However, the conditions
    determining whether an employee is entitled, where he
    has been unfairly dismissed, to obtain reinstatement or
    re-engagement fall within the scope of Council                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                            published in the European Court Reports)
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    men and women as regards access to employment,
    vocational training and promotion, and working
                                                                     In Case C-280/97: Reference to the Court under
    conditions.
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht
                                                                     Düsseldorf (Germany) in the proceedings pending before
                                                                     that court between ROSE Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co.
3. It is for the National Court, taking into account all
                                                                     KG and Oberfinanzdirektion Köln on the interpretation of
    the material legal and factual circumstances, to
                                                                     the combined nomenclature as contained in Annex I to
    determine the point in time at which the legality of a
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September
    rule to the effect that protection against unfair
                                                                     1996 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
    dismissal applies only to employees who have been
                                                                     No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
    continuously employed for a minimum period of two
                                                                     on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 238, 19.9.1996,
    years is to be assessed.
                                                                     p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: D. A. O.
                                                                     Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber, L. Sevón
                                                                     (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
4. In order to establish whether a measure adopted by a
                                                                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
    Member State has disparate effect as between men and
                                                                     judgment on 9 February 1999, in which it has ruled:
    women to such a degree as to amount to indirect
    discrimination for the purposes of Article 119 of the
    Treaty, the National Court must verify whether the
    statistics available indicate that a considerably smaller        The combined nomenclature, as contained in Annex I to
    percentage of women than men is able to fulfil the               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September
    requirement imposed by that measure. If that is the              1996 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
    case, there is indirect sex discrimination, unless that          No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
    measure is justified by objective factors unrelated to           on the Common Customs Tariff, must be interpreted as
    any discrimination based on sex.                                 meaning that a product consisting of a rectangular
                                                                     container with a lid of coated die-cast aluminium
                                                                     (aluminium/silicon alloy with aluminium content
5. If a considerably smaller percentage of women than                predominant by weight), four steel connecting bolts and
    men is capable of fulfilling the requirement of two              four earthing bolts of copper-plated steel (packed loose in
    years' employment imposed by the rule described in               the product and yet to be inserted into threaded holes
    paragraph 3 of the operative part of this judgment, it           provided for that purpose), which is intended to receive
    is for the Member State, as the author of the allegedly          electrical terminals and holes enabling electrical circuits to
    discriminatory rule, to show that the said rule reflects         be connected, must be classified, in accordance with
    a legitimate aim of its social policy, that that aim is          Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the interpretation of
    unrelated to any discrimination based on sex, and that           the combined nomenclature, under subheading 8536 90 85
    it could reasonably consider that the means chosen               as an incomplete junction box.
    were suitable for attaining that aim.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 295, 27.2.1997.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.


title: Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-303/95)

text:
28 . 10 . 95          1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/7
     regulations and administrative provisions of the                  upon each Member State to which it is addressed, Member
     Member States with regard to liability for defective              States are required to observe the time limits laid down in
     products ('), and in particular Article 7 ( e ) thereof, the      directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
     United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under         30 June 1993 without the Italian Republic having brought
     the Directive and under the EC Treaty;                            into force the necessary provisions in order to comply with
                                                                       the Directive referred to in the Commission 's application .
2 . order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .
                                                                       (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 7 ( e ) of the Directive seeks to resolve the question as
to who must bear the risk of developments in the state of
scientific and technical knowledge in relation to the
possibility of discovering the defect. The test in Article 7 ( e )
is objective whereas that in Section 4 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Part I of the
Consumer Protection Act 1987, by which the United                      Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission
Kingdom sought to implement the Directive, is subjective .                   of the European Communities against the Italian
The United Kingdom has thereby converted the strict                                                   Republic
liability imposed by Article 1 of the Directive into mere                                         Case C-303/95 )
liability for negligence .                                                                        ( 95/C 286/ 16 )
(') OJ No L 210 , 7 . 8 . 1985 , p . 29 .
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria
                                                                       Condou Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,
Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission                  Kirchberg.
      of the European Communities against the Italian
                              Republic
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                         ( Case C-302/95 )
                           ( 95/C 286/15 )                             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, notify
                                                                            the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                   necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /1 57/EEC
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         of 18 March 1991 (') on batteries and accumulators
25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European                         containing certain dangerous substances, the Italian
Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro and                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Dominique Maidani of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                   Directive and the EC Treaty;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, notify        directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved ,
     the laws , regulations or administrative provisions               upon each Member State to which it is addressed , Member
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /271/EEC            States are required to observe the time limits laid down in
     of 21 May 1991 ( 5 ) concerning urban waste water                 directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
     treatment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfill its          18 September 1992 without the Italian Republic having
     obligations under that Directive and the EC Treaty;               brought into force the necessary provisions in order to
                                                                       comply with the Directive referred to in the Commission's
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                      application .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
 Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
 directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,


title: Case C-422/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
15.11.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/41
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                             the environment of genetically modified organisms and
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                         repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or at any rate
                          lic of Germany                                       by not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic
                                                                               of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                         (Case C-420/03)                                       directive;
                         (2003/C 275/64)                                 2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Pleas in law and main arguments
ties on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Prof. Dr Ulrich Wölker, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       The period for transposition expired on 17 October 2002.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              (1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
      2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into
      the environment of genetically modified organisms and
      repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or at any rate
                                                                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
      by not informing the Commission thereof, the Federal
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                                                         Netherlands
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs                                      (Case C-422/03)
      of the proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/66)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
The period for transposition expired on 17 October 2002.                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.                                                 Communities, represented by Michel Van Beek.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                               Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                               the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                               Austria
                                                                               into the environment of genetically modified organisms
                                                                               and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or in any
                         (Case C-421/03)                                       event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                               Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                         (2003/C 275/65)                                       obligations under that directive;
                                                                         2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Prof. Dr Ulrich Wölker, with an              Pleas in law and main arguments
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The period for transposition of the Directive expired on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              17 October 2002.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive         (1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
      2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 June 1999 in Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodríguez Pérez and Others and José Maria Olivares Ramos and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfer of pension rights - National proceedings - Request for financial assistance)

text:
18.9.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 265/13
initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             Vicente, Saturnino Durán Vidal, Alfredo Escribano Martı́nez,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                       Pablo Fernández Ruiz, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Luis Guembe
SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European                         Casi, Ana Luisa Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Géraldine O’Shea,
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence                    Antonio Oliva Español, Pablo Pardo Ortiz, Manuel Parejo
Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for annulment of the                        Pagador, Ernesto Pérez Carbonell, Dolores Rodrı́guez Pérez,
decision not to promote the applicant to grade B 3 in the                      Enrique Rojas De Montis, Alfonso Ruiz De Azoa Castano and
1997 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance                        Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet are annulled inasmuch as they
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and                       refuse them, in respect of the period prior to that date, financial
R. Garcı́a Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-                  assistance for the legal fees occasioned by the proceedings brought
trator, for the Registrar, has given judgment on 27 April 1999,                before Spanish courts for the purpose of securing the transfer to
in which it:                                                                   the Community scheme of their retirement pension rights acquired
                                                                               in Spain;
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                           2. For the rest, the applications in Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98
2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs            are dismissed.
     incurred by the applicant up until the date of receipt by him of
     the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant is ordered to     3. The Commission shall pay two thirds of the costs of the applicants
     bear the costs incurred by him thereafter.                                in Case T-114/98. For the rest, each party shall bear its own
                                                                               costs.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 May 1999
                            of 1 June 1999
                                                                           in Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs
in Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodrı́-                     Réunis de Roquefort and Others v Commission of the
guez Pérez and Others and José Maria Olivares Ramos and                                        European Communities (1)
Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Case not proceeding to judgment)
(Officials — Transfer of pension rights — National proceed-
            ings — Request for financial assistance)                                                 (1999/C 265/26)
                           (1999/C 265/25)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-140/96: Société des Caves et des Producteurs Réunis
                    (Language of the cases: Spanish)                       de Roquefort, established at Roquefort-sur-Soulzon (France),
                                                                           Société Fromagère Corse, established at Bastia (France), Société
In Joined Cases T-114/98 and T-115/98: Dolores Rodrı́guez                  pour la Valorisation du Lait de Brebis du Grand Sud-Ouest
Pérez and 23 others and José Marı́a Olivares Ramos and 55                  (Valbreso). established at La Canourgue (France), Compagnie
others, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                  des Fromages, established at Viré (France), Fromager du Causse,
Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars, with an                established at Roquefort (France), Alliance Agro Alimentaire,
address for service at 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels,                    established in Toulouse (France), and Confédération Générale
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis et des Industriels de
Gianluigi Valsesia and Eric Gippini Fournier) — application                Roquefort, established at Millau (France), represented by
for annulment on the Commission decisions refusing to grant                F. Ancel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
the applicants financial assistance for the transfer to the                Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de
Community pension scheme of pension rights which they                      Bourbon, v Commission of the European Communities
acquired under the Spanish scheme, as provided for under                   (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid) supported
Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of          by Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos
the European Communities, or discontinuing that financial                  AEBE — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
assistance — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                  (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1999 on the registration of
composed of M. Jaeger President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                 geographical indications and designations of origin under the
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
has given a judgment on 1 June 1999, the operative part of                 No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 148, p. 1) in so far as concerns
which is as follows:                                                       registration of the name ‘feta’ as a protected designation of
                                                                           origin — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), com-
1. The decisions of 10 November 1997 addressed to Rafael Aguirre           posed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
     Unceta, Miguel Alay Marcos, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Soledad           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 May 1999, the
     Blanco Mangudo, Federica Burel Louberry, Fabriciano Corchete          operative part of which is as follows:


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2002 in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Appeal — Referral back to the Court of First Instance — Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency — Lack of urgency)

text:
C 169/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(98) 241 final                 Commission require importers of ferro-silicon originating in
(REM 13/97) of 4 February 1998 finding that remission of                   those four countries to provide security corresponding to the
duties should be refused as regards imports of television sets             expired anti-dumping duties and to subject their imports to
from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 registration, or, in the further alternative, for an order that the
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,           Commission require the said importers to subject their imports
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 April 2002,                to registration — the President of the Court of First Instance
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 has made an order on 27 February 2002, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to give a decision on the present action;
                                                                           1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
2.   There is no need to give a decision on the application by the
     Kingdom of Spain for leave to intervene;
                                                                           2.    The costs are reserved.
3.   The Commission is to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE                                                                 of 4 April 2002
                       of 27 February 2002                                 in Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Com-
           mission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim measures — Admissibility — State
                                                                           aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case —
(Application for interim measures — Appeal — Referral                                   Urgency — Weighing up of interests)
back to the Court of First Instance — Dumping — Decision
 terminating expiry review — Urgency — Lack of urgency)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/58)
                         (2002/C 169/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages, established in Brussels,                 In Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie                     established in Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe,
(France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön (Sweden),                avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid, represented by D. Voille-          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
mot and O. Prost, lawyers, supported by the Kingdom of Spain               schitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for suspension of the
(Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) against Commission of the European               operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and                           of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for
A.P. Bentley), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established in                  Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30),
Almaty (Kazakhstan) and Alloy 2000 SA, established in                      and in the alternative, an application for interim measures —
Luxembourg, represented by J.E. Flynn, Barrister, and J. Magnin            the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
and S. Mills, Solicitors, — application for suspension of the              on 4 April 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
operation of Commission Decision of 21 February 2001 (OJ
2001 L 84, p. 36) in so far as it terminates the anti-dumping
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in              1.    The operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/
the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine                   185/EEC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by
and for an order that the Commission re-impose expired anti-                     Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH is sus-
dumping duties, and in the alternative, for an order that the                    pended until 17 February 2003.


title: Case C-420/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH (Placing on the market of biocidal products — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Concept of ‘biocidal products’ — Product causing flocculation of harmful organisms without destroying or deterring them or rendering them harmless)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH
   (Case C-420/10) (1)

   (Placing on the market of biocidal products - Directive 98/8/EC - Article 2(1)(a) - Concept of ‘biocidal products’ - Product causing flocculation of harmful organisms without destroying or deterring them or rendering them harmless)
   2012/C 118/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Söll GmbH

      Defendant: Tetra GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Classification, as a ‘biocidal product’, of a product causing flocculation of harmful organisms, without destroying them, deterring them or rendering them harmless — Anti-algae agent containing the substance aluminium chlorohydrate — Concept of ‘biocidal product’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘biocidal products’ set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as including even products which act only by indirect means on the target harmful organisms, so long as they contain one or more active substances provoking a chemical or biological action which forms an integral part of a causal chain, the objective of which is to produce an inhibiting effect in relation to those organisms.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 1999 in Case C-166/97: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas)

text:
C 188/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3.7.1999
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 November 1996
                                                                             amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance of the
                          of 16 March 1999                                   accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                             expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
in Case C-222/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
the Oberster Gerichtshof): in the proceedings brought                        respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996 L 323, p. 26)
before that court by Manfred Trummer and Peter May-                          — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President
                                  er (1)                                     of the First Chamber, acting President of the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                             C. Gulmann, D.A.0. Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
(Free movement of capital — National prohibition on the                      (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
creation of a mortgage in a foreign currency — Interpretation                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment in
                 of Article 73b of the EC Treaty)                            which it:
                           (1999/C 188/06)                                   1. Dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: German)                           2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (1) OJ No C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-222/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought before that court
by Manfred Trummer, Peter Mayer — on the interpretation of
Article 73b of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-
ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K.M. Ioannou, Judges;                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March                                          of 18 March 1999
1999, in which has ruled:
Article 73b of the EC Treaty precludes the application of national           in Case C-166/97: Commission of the European Communi-
rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, requiring a                                ties v French Republic (1)
mortgage securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member
State to be registered in the national currency.                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas)
(1) OJ No C 228 of 26.7.1997.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          of 18 March 1999
in Case C-59/97: Italian republic v Commission of the                        In Case C-166/97: Commission of the European Communities
                     European Communities (1)                                (Agents: initially Richard B. Wainwright and Jean-Francis
                                                                             Pasquier, and subsequently Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier
 (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1992 financial year)                       Couvert-Castéra) v French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-
                                                                             Bellanger and Romain Nadal) — application for a declaration
                           (1999/C 188/07)                                   that, by taking neither the special conservation measures for
                                                                             the habitats of birds in the Seine estuary nor the appropriate
                                                                             steps to avoid deterioration of those habitats, the French
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of
                                                                             Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation wil be published in     conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — the Court
                      the European Court Reports)                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and
In Case C-59/97: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted                M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General, D. Louter-
by G. De Bellis) v Commission of the European Communities                    man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
(Agent: E. de March) — application for partial annulment of                  given a judgment on 18 March 1999 in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 188/5
1. Declares that, by failing to classify as a special protection area a      2. Annuls the decision of 21 February 1995 appointing Mr X as
    sufficiently large area of the Seine estuary and by failing to adopt         head of division in the Directorate-General for Information and
    measures to provide the classified special protection area with an           Public Relations of the European Parliament and assigning him
    adequate legal regime, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its          to the Parliament Information Office for Spain in Madrid;
    obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive
    79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;            3. Orders the European Parliament to pay in their entirety the costs
                                                                                of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                   Court of Justice.
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 18 March 1999
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte v European Parlia-
                          of 18 March 1999                                                                 ment (1)
in Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v European                      (Officials — Application for revision of a judgment of the
                             Parliament (1)                                     Court of First Instance — Appeal to the Court of Justice)
(Officials — Internal competition — Appointment to a post                                              (1999/C 188/10)
                         of head of division)
                           (1999/C 188/09)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte, formerly an official of the
                    in the European Court Reports)                           European Parliament, represented by Henri Ferretti, of the
                                                                             Thionville Bar, 39 Boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, F - 57100 Thionville
                                                                             — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
In Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero, an official of                 of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 5 November
the European Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by                  1997 in Case T-26/89 (125) De Compte v Parliament [1997]
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,                    ECR-SC I-A-305 and II-847, seeking to have that judgment set
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange — appeal against                   Parliament (Agents: Evelyn Waldherr and Anders Neergaard)
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn,
Communities (First Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini, H. Ragnem-
T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC                          alm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
I-A-141 and II-429, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March
the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament                1999, in which it:
(Agent: Norbert Lorenz, assisted by Francis Herbert and Daniel
M. Tomasevic) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
P.J.G Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
cini, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges;                    2. Orders Mr de Compte to pay the costs.
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 March 1999 in which it:
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.1998.
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities of 12 June 1997 in Case T-237/95
    Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament;


title: Case C-47/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘Veloserviss’
   (Case C-47/16)
   (2016/C 111/18)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant: SIA ‘Veloserviss’

      Questions referred

   Should the importer’s obligation to act in good faith, laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, be defined as meaning that:

               (a)

               it includes an obligation on the importer to verify the circumstances in which the Form A certificate granted to the exporter was issued (certificates regarding the parts which constitute the goods, the role of the exporter in the manufacture of the goods, etc.)?

               (b)

               the importer acted in bad faith for no other reason than that the exporter acted in bad faith (for example, where the exporter failed to reveal the true origin of the costs, the value of the parts which constitute the goods, etc., to the customs authorities of the exporting country)?

               (c)

               the obligation to act in good faith has not been fulfilled for no other reason than that the exporter submitted incorrect information to the customs authorities of the exporting country, and that is so even where the customs authorities themselves committed errors in issuing the certificate?

         May the importer’s obligation to act in good faith, laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be deemed to be sufficiently proved by virtue of the general description of the situation set out in the communication from OLAF and by virtue of OLAF’s findings, or should the national customs authorities nevertheless obtain additional evidence regarding the conduct of the exporter?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2000 in Case T-1/96 (92): Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
10.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 163/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 March 2000                                                        of 13 January 2000
in Case T-97/95 (92) II: Sinochem National Chemicals
                                                                         in Case T-1/96 (92): Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European
                                                                         Schulze-Beiering v Council of the European Union and
                             Union (1)
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Taxation of costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the
parties for the purpose of the proceedings — Lawyers’ fees                                      (Taxation of costs)
                     — Photocopy expenses)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/53)
                         (2000/C 163/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-1/96 (92): Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
In Case T-57/95 (92) II: Sinochem National Chemicals Import
                                                                         Schulze-Beiering, residing at Borken (Germany), represented
& Export Corporation, established in Beijing (People’s Republic
                                                                         by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
of China), represented by Jean-Frangois Bellis, of the Brussels
                                                                         Frank Schulze and Klaus Kettner, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against
                                                                         Dupong and Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, v Council of
Council of the European Union (Agents: initially Yves Cretien
                                                                         the European Union (Agents: Anne-Marie Colaert and Marco
and Antonio Tanca, then by Mr Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                         Núñez-Müller) and Commission of the European Communities
Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
                                                                         (Agents: Michael Niejahr and Marco Núñez-Müller) — appli-
Communities, (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural Español
                                                                         cation for taxation of costs pursuant to the judgment of the
SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain), represented by José
                                                                         Court of First Instance of 13 January 1999 in Case
Rivas de Andrés, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
                                                                         T-14/96 Böcker-Lensing and Schulze-Beiering v Council and
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22
                                                                         Commission [1999] ECR-II 1 — the Court of First Instance
Rue Marie Adélaïde — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                         (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura
be paid by the applicant to the defendant, following the
                                                                         Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 1998 in
                                                                         an order on 13 January 2000, the operative part of which is as
Case T-97/95 Sinochemn v Council [1998] ECR II-85 — the
                                                                         follows:
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
J.D. Cooke, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2000, the                  1. The total amount of the costs payable to the Council and the
operative part of which is as follows:                                       Commission by Böcker-Lensing and Schulze-Beiering is fixed in
                                                                             the sum of EUR 4000;
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Sinochem National          2. An enforcement copy of this order is to be supplied to the Council
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation to the Council is fixed at             and the Commission.
DEM 46 230.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 64 of 2.3.1996.
(1) OJ 1995 C 159.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 1998 in Case C-43/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(2) and (6) - Right to deduct VAT - Exclusions provided for by national rules predating the Sixth Directive)

text:
5.9.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 278/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the EC
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                    Treaty, consisting of setting a compulsory tariff for all
                                                                          customs agents, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
                       of 18 June 1998                                    its obligations under Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;
in    Case   C-35/96: Commission of the             European
             Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(Action for failure to fulfil obligations Ð Agreements,
decisions and concerted practices Ð Fixing of business               (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
tariffs Ð Customs agents Ð Legislation reinforcing the
                   effects of an agreement)
                        (98/C 278/01)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                           of 18 June 1998
                                                                     in    Case    C-43/96: Commission of the             European
In Case C-35/96: Commission of the European                                        Communities v. French Republic (1)
Communities (Agent: Enrico Traversa) v. Italian Republic
                                                                     (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Sixth Council Directive
(Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri) Ð
                                                                     77/388/EEC Ð Article 17(2) and (6) Ð Right to deduct
application for a delcaration that, by adopting and
                                                                     VAT Ð Exclusions provided for by national rules
maintaining in force a law which, in granting the relative
                                                                                predating the Sixth Directive)
decision-making power, requires the Consiglio Nazionale
degli Spedizionieri Doganali (National Council of                                              (98/C 278/02)
Customs Agents) to adopt a decision by an association of
undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty in
that it sets a compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the                          (Language of the case: French)
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges: G. Cosmas,                              published in the European Court Reports)
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                     In Case C-43/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v.
1. declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a             French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins, assisted by G.
     law which, in granting the relative decision-making             Mignot), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
     power, requires the National Council of Customs                 and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Ridley) Ð application for
     Agents (Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri Doga-           a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation
     nali Ð CNSD) to adopt a decision by an association              which denies taxable persons the right to deduct value
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.9.98
added tax on means of transport which constitute the very            5.7.1985, p. 40) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
tool of their trade, the French Republic has failed to fulfil        of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/            Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and K. M.
EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of               Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-
the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common                General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment               Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1998, in which
(OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1), and in particular Article 17(2)         it has ruled:
thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R.
Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G.              Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),                    assessment of the effects of certain public and private
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                projects on the environment is to be interpreted as not
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              permitting Member States to waive the obligations
given a judgment on 18 June 1998, in which it:                       regarding environmental assessments in the case of
                                                                     projects listed in Annex I of the Directive where:
1. dismisses the application;                                        Ð the projects have already been the subject of a consent
                                                                          granted prior to 3 July 1988, the date by which the
                                                                          Directive was to have been transposed into national
2. order the Commission of the European Communities                       law,
     to pay the costs;
                                                                     Ð the consent was not preceded by an environmental
                                                                          assessment in accordance with the requirements of the
3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                          Directive and no use was made of it, and
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                     Ð a fresh consent procedure was formally initiated after
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                          3 July 1988.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 18 June 1998
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-81/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     of 18 June 1998
the Nederlandse Raad van State): Burgemeester en wet-
houders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and                       in Case C-266/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland (1)              the Tribunale di Genova): Corsica Ferries France SA v.
                                                                     Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del Porto di Genova Coop.
(Council Directive 85/337/EEC Ð New consent for a                    arl, Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Golfo di La Spezia Coop.
                          zoning plan)                                     arl, Ministero dei Trasporti e della Navigazione (1)
                         (98/C 278/03)                               (Freedom to provide services Ð Maritime transport Ð
                                                                     Undertakings holding exclusive rights Ð Mooring services
                                                                     for vessels in ports Ð Compliance with the competition
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                rules Ð Tariffs)
                                                                                (98/C 278/04)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-81/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                       published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State
(Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Burgemeester en                    In Case C-266/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
wethouders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and                    of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova (District
Others and Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland Ð                   Court, Genoa) (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the
on the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of             proceedings pending before that court between Corsica
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain             Ferries France SA and Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del
public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175,            Porto di Genova Coop. arl., Gruppo Ormeggiatori del