title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Huy on a judgment of the Tribunal Correctionnel de Huy of 29 October 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court in the case of Ministère Public against B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sàrl (Case C-376/96)

text:
8 . 2. 97             1 EN |                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 40/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                                down by Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and
Circondariale di Caserta by order of that court of                               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation ( EEC )
14 October 1996 in the case of Antonio Pontillo against                          No 441 /88 ( 4 )?
                                 Donatab
                           Case C-372/96 )                                  2 . Are the fourth indent of Article 1 ( 3 ) of Regulation
                                                                                ( EC ) No 343/94 and Article 1 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of
                             ( 97/C 40/ 17 )
                                                                                Regulation ( EC ) No 465/94, as amended by
                                                                                Regulation ( EC ) No 610/94, invalid for breach of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           principle of the protection of legitimate expectations ?
European Communities by order of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrates' Court ), Caserta , of                 3 . Are the fourth indent of Article 1 ( 3 ) of Regulation
14 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on                              ( EC ) No 343/94 , and Article 1 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of
25 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                       Regulation ( EC ) No 465/94, as amended by
Antonio Pontillo against Donatab on the following                                Regulation ( EC ) No 610/94, invalid for infringement
questions :                                                                      of Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/87 ( 5 ) and
                                                                                their enactment ultra vires for failure to meet the legal
1 . In the light of the principle of the protection of                           requirement of an accurate determination of the 'yield
      legitimate expectations and of the rationale underlying                    per hectare '?
     the quota system, is Council Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1738/91 (') to be regarded as valid, in so far as it               4 . Is Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/87
      unexpectedly and unpreditably reduced the prices and                       invalid for breach of the principle of proportionality in
     the processing premium for tobacco of the variety                           so far as it prescribes, in the case of each producer
      known as Burley I ( Italian ) at such a late stage in the                  subject to the obligation , the volume to be distilled, a
     tobacco crop year that even most prudent and alert                          wholly inappropriate means of attaining the objective
     growers were left with no room for manoeuvre ?                              sought ?
2 . Is the fact that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1738/91 fails to                 5 . Is the fourth indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Regulation
      give any reasons at all , whether express or implied , for                  ( EEC ) No 441 /88 invalid for exceeding the limits on
      its provisions concerning Burley I tobacco — which                         the exercise of administrative discretion in delimiting
      was more seriously affected than other tobacco                             regions for the purposes of the common organization
      varieties even though excess production of those                           of the markets ?
      varieties had been even higher — open to criticism in
      that it constitutes a breach of essential procedural                  6 . Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 ( 6 )
      requirements ?                                                              invalid for infringement of Article 39 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 822/87 inasmuch as it fails to meet the legal
(') OJ No L 163 , 26 . 6 . 1991 , p . 13 .                                        requirement of serving to restore market stability in
                                                                                the current wine year ?
                                                                            7. Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 invalid
                                                                                because it contravenes the principle of proportionality
                                                                                with which Community policy should be consistent ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale        di    Treviso ,       Sezione    Distaccata     di
                                                                             ')  OJ  No  L  44, 17 . 2 . 1994, p . 9 .
Conegliano, by order of that court of 2 November 1996                        2)  OJ  No  L  58 , 2 . 3 . 1994 , p . 2 .
in the case of Galileo Zaninotto against Ispettorato                         ')  OJ  No  I. 77, 19 . 3 . 1994 , p . 12 .
        Centrale Repressioni Frodi, Ufficio di Conegliano                    4)  OJ  No  L  45 , 18 . 2 . 1988 , p . 15 .
                          ( Case C-375 /96 )                                 ■') OJ  No  L  84, 27 . 3 . 1987, p . 1 .
                                                                             ") OJ   No  L  332 , 22 . 12 . 1994 , p . 32 .
                              ( 97/C 40/ 18 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European        Communities         by     order   of    the  Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrates' Court ), Treviso —
Sezione Distaccata di Conegliano ( Conegliano Section ) —                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
of 2 November 1996 , received at the Court Registry on                      Premiere Instance de Huy on a judgment of the Tribunal
26 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  Correctionnel de Huy of 29 October 1996 in the criminal
Galileo Zaninotto against Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni                  proceedings pending before that court in the case of
Frodi , Ufficio di Conegliano, on the following questions:                  Ministere Public against B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage
                                                                                Sari
 1 . Are the fourth indent of Article 1 ( 3 ) of Regulation                                                Case C-376/96 )
       ( EC ) No 343/94 ('), and Article 1 ( 1 ) ( c ), Article 1 ( 2 ),
                                                                                97/C 40/ 19
       second subparagraph, and Article 1 ( 3 ) ( Annex,
       concerning Region 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No
       465/94 ( 2 ), as amended by Regulation ( EC ) No                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       610/94 (■*) so far as concerns Region 4 , invalid for                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
       breach of the principle of non-discrimination laid                    Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Huy, of 29 October 1996 ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/ 10           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November               1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings           27 November 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the cases of
before that court in the case of Ministère Public against             August de Vriendt ( C-377/96 ), Rene Van Looveren (C
B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sari on the following                378/96 ), Julien Grare ( C-379/96 ), Karel Boeykens ( C-380/
questions :                                                           96 ), Frans Serneels ( C-381 /96 ), Fredy Parotte ( C-382/96 ),
                                                                      Camille Delbrouck ( C-383/96 ) and Henri Props ( C-384/
A. Must Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty be interpreted               96 ) v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( National Office for
    as meaning that they preclude a Member State from                 Pensions ) on the following questions:
    requiring an undertaking established in another
    Member State and temporarily carrying out work in                 1 . Is Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (') of
    the first State :
                                                                           19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           it  leaves   the   Member          States free to determine
    1 . to appoint an agent or servant responsible for                     differently for men and women the age at which they
          keeping the individual accounts of employees who                 are respectively deemed to have become unfit for work
          provide services there ;                                         by reason of old age, for the purpose of acquiring
                                                                           entitlement to a retirement pension for salaried
    2 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to
                                                                           employees and, thus, to calculate those pensions
          the legislation of that State relating to the keeping
          of social documents;
                                                                           differently, in the manner indicated in this judgment ?
    3 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to             2 . Is that Article to be interpreted as precluding men and
          the legislation of that State relating to social                 women deemed to have become unfit for work by
          inspections;                                                     reason of old age as from the age of 65 and 60
                                                                           respectively who, as from that age , also lose their
    4 . to draw up an individual account for each worker;                  rights to social security benefit, such as unemployment
                                                                           benefit, from claiming an unconditional right to a
    5 . to keep a special staff register;                                  pension as from the age of 60 years, the amount of the
                                                                           pension being calculated differently, according to
    6 . to draw up working regulations;                                    whether the claimant is a man or a woman ?
    7 . to keep social documents ( staff register and
          individual account ) at the Belgian residence of a          3 . Should the expression ' pensionable age ' in Article 7 of
          natural person who is to keep those documents in                  Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 be
          his capacity as agent or servant;                                construed as meaning the age which gives rise to
                                                                           entitlement to a pension, or is it the age at which the
     8 . to issue an individual record for each worker,                     employee is deemed to have become unfit for work by
                                                                            reason of old age, in accordance with national criteria,
     where that undertaking is already subject to                           and enjoys the benefit of a replacement income
     requirements which, while not identical , are at least                 excluding other social security benefits of the same
     comparable on account of their aim in respect of the                   description ?
     same workers and for the same period of activity in
     the State where it is established ?
                                                                            Can that expression be interpreted as covering both of
                                                                            the above definitions ?
B. Can Articles 59 and 60 render inoperative the first
     paragraph of Article 3 of the Civil Code on Belgian               D OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
     public order legislation ?
 References for preliminary rulings by the Hof van                     Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Societe Louis
 Cassatie, Belgium, by judgments of that court of                      Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on
 4 November 1996 in the cases of August De Vriendt, Rene               24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
 Van Looveren, Julien Grare, Karel Boeykens, Frans                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
 Serneels, Fredy Parotte, Camille Delbrouck and Henri                  T-485/93 between Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the
 Props v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (National Office for                       Commission of the European Communities
                              Pensions )                                                       ( Case C-386/96 P)
      ( Cases C-377/96, C-378/96, C-379/96, C-380/96,                                              ( 97/C 40/21 )
         C-381/96, C-382/96, C-383/96 and C-384/96 )
                           ( 97/C 40/20 )
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                        1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between
 European Communities by judgments of the Hof van                      Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the
 Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 4 November               European Communities was brought before the Court of


title: Case C-64/05 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-168/02 between IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden and by Kingdom of Denmark and Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/9

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-168/02 between IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden and by Kingdom of Denmark and Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-64/05 P)
   (2005/C 115/18)
   Language of procedure: English
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-168/02 (1) between IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Sweden and by Kingdom of Denmark and Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden, represented by K. Wistrand, acting as agent.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02;

               2.

               annul the decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002 and

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Swedish Government submits that the Court of First Instance has infringed Community law in the judgment under appeal.
   The Court of First Instance first observed that the right of access to documents of the institutions, provided for in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘openness regulation’), covers all documents held by those institutions and, as a result, they may be required, in appropriate cases, to make available documents originating from third parties, including, in particular, the Member States. The Court of First Instance pointed out that the so-called authorship rule, that is to say, the principle that the person who drew up a document has control over the document and thus decides whether it may be disclosed, regardless of who holds the document, was not incorporated into the Regulation.
   The Court of First Instance none the less took the view that Article 4(5) of the openness regulation implies that the Member States are subject to special treatment and that the authorship rule therefore applies to documents drawn up by Member States. To justify that position, the Court of First Instance pointed out, first, that the obligation to obtain agreement, under Article 4(5) of the openness regulation, would otherwise risk becoming a dead letter and, second, that it is neither the object nor the effect of that regulation to amend national legislation. According to the Court of First Instance, the Member State is under no obligation to state the reasons for any request made by it under Article 4(5) of the openness regulation.
   However, the Swedish Government finds that there is no express and unequivocal support for the Court of First Instance's interpretation in the provision in question or elsewhere in the openness regulation. Under those circumstances none of the arguments on which the Court of First Instance based its interpretation, either on its own or taken together with the others, can constitute a reason to disregard the fundamental rule on which the openness regulation is based. According to the regulation, it is for the institution holding the document to assess whether a document should be disclosed. If none of the exceptions to the rule of disclosure in Articles 4(1) to 4(3) of the openness regulation is applicable, the document is to be disclosed. The obligation to obtain agreement under Article 4(5) of the openness regulation is a procedural rule which would serve its purpose even if the Member States were not allowed an absolute right of veto. Nor does the absence of a right of veto entail any amendment to national legislation.
   Under the openness regulation a decision to refuse access to a document can only be made on the basis of one of the exceptions set out in Article 4(1) to 4(3). If the Member State in question does not state reasons for its refusal to disclose a document, that Member State thus incurs the risk that the institution will not be in a position to find that there is a specific need for confidentiality which can constitute a ground not to disclose the document according to the exceptions to the rule of disclosure in the openness regulation.
   None of the arguments on which the Court of First Instance based its decision is sufficient to allow an exception in respect of documents from the Member States to be made to the fundamental principle that it is the institution which holds a document which is responsible for assessing whether it should be disclosed. The decision of the Court of First Instance thus infringed Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 24.08.2002, p. 30.


title: Case C-480/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo by order of that court of 2 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 November 2004, in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Antonello D'Antonio

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo by order of that court of 2 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 November 2004, in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Antonello D'Antonio
   (Case C-480/04)
   (2005/C 31/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy) of 2 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Antonello D'Antonio on the following question:
   ‘Are Articles 4(1) and 4a of Law 401/89, as subsequently amended, which at present reserve to Italian public-service agents alone, and not also to the intermediaries of foreign bookmakers, the activity in question in these proceedings, compatible with Articles 31, 86, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty?’


title: Case C-51/10 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Sign composed exclusively of numerals — Application for registration of the sign ‘1000’ as a mark in respect of brochures, periodicals and newspapers — Allegedly descriptive character of that sign — Criteria for the application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Obligation on OHIM to take into account its previous decision-making practice)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-51/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for registration of the sign ‘1000’ as a mark in respect of brochures, periodicals and newspapers - Allegedly descriptive character of that sign - Criteria for the application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation on OHIM to take into account its previous decision-making practice)
   2011/C 139/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 August 2006 in Case R 447/2006-4 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘1000’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 28 and 41 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-489/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany)) — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger (Directive 97/7/EC — Consumer protection — Distance contracts — Exercise by the consumer of the right of withdrawal — Compensation for use to be paid to the seller)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany)) — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger
   (Case C-489/07) (1)

   (Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Exercise by the consumer of the right of withdrawal - Compensation for use to be paid to the seller)
   2009/C 256/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Lahr

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pia Messner

      Defendant: Firma Stefan Krüger

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Lahr — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — Exercise of the right to revoke by the consumer — Compensation for use to be paid to the seller

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of the second sentence of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides in general that, in the case of withdrawal by a consumer within the withdrawal period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods acquired under a distance contract.
   However, those provisions do not prevent the consumer from being required to pay compensation for the use of the goods in the case where he has made use of those goods in a manner incompatible with the principles of civil law, such as those of good faith or unjust enrichment, on condition that the purpose of that directive and, in particular, the functionality and efficacy of the right of withdrawal are not adversely affected, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C 205/02 P to C 208/02 P and C 213/02 P: Dansk Rørindustri A/S and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — District heating pipes (pre-insulated pipes) — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Cartel — Boycott — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expectations — Lawfulness — Leniency notice — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 28 June 2005
   in Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C 205/02 P to C 208/02 P and C 213/02 P: Dansk Rørindustri A/S and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - District heating pipes (pre-insulated pipes) - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Cartel - Boycott - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Non-retroactivity - Legitimate expectations - Lawfulness - Leniency notice - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2005/C 205/01)
   Languages of the case: Danish, German and English
   In Joined Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C 205/02 P to C 208/02 P and C 213/02 P: appeals under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 17 May 2002 in the first case, 29 May 2002 in the second, 3 June 2002 in the next four cases and 5 June 2002 in the last case — Dansk Rørindustri A/S, established in Fredericia (Denmark) (lawyers: K. Dyekjær-Hansen and K. Høegh) (C-189/02 P), Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, established in Rosenheim (Germany), Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Gesellschaft mbH), established in Hohenberg (Austria), Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established in Sondershausen (Germany) (lawyer: P. Krömer) (C-202/02 P), KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, established in Linz (Austria) (lawyer: W. Löbl), LR af 1998 A/S, formerly Løgstør Rør A/S, established in Løgstør (Denmark) (lawyer: D. Waelbroeck and H. Peytz) (C-206/02 P), Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, established in Wunstorf (Germany) (lawyers: T. Jestaedt, H.-C. Salger and M. Sura) (C-207/02 P), LR af 1998 (Deutschland) GmbH, formerly Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, established in Fulda (Germany) (lawyer: H.-J. Hellmann) (C-208/02 P), ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, established in Zurich (Switzerland) (lawyers: A. Weitbrecht, J. Ruiz Calzado and M. Bay) (C-213/02 P), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls, P. Oliver and H. Støvlbæk, assisted by A. Böhlke (C 189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P and C 208/02 P) and R. Thompson QC (C 206/02 P and C-213/02 P)), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH Verwaltungsgesellschaft (lawyer: P. Krömer), (C-202/02 P) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Joins Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               3.

               Orders Dansk Rørindustri A/S, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Gesellschaft mbH, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, LR af 1998 A/S, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, LR af 1998 (Deutschland) GmbH and ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.


title: Case F-90/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/40

         Action brought on 18 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-90/13)
   2014/C 24/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Mansullo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning his situation to a lawyer who did not represent him.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the request sent by the applicant to the Commission on 26 October 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

               —

               annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the request sent by the applicant to the Commission on 4 July 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

               —

               annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint against the decision rejecting the request of 9 March 2012, sent by the applicant to the Commission on 26 September 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

               —

               annul the note of 12 November 2012 bearing the reference ‘HR.D.2/MB/ac/Ares(2012)1332162’ in the top right-hand corner of the single page comprising the note;

               —

               annul the note of 27 September 2012 bearing the reference ‘Ref Ares (2012) 1131229-27/09/2012’ in the top right-hand corner of the first of the two pages comprising the note;

               —

               annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 10 March 2013;

               —

               annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 2 January 2013;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the note of 29 April 2013 bearing the reference ‘Ref Ares(2013) 977767 — 29/04/2013’ in the top right-hand corner of the first of the three pages comprising the note;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation from 28 February 2013 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000,00 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation from 5 November 2012 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-373/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/48

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission

   (Case C-373/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 April 2015 in Case T-259/13 France v Commission;

               —

               itself adjudicate definitively on the dispute by annulling Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) to the extent to which that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the French Republic in relation to Axis 2 of the Plan for Rural Development in France in respect of the accounting years 2008 and 2009, or refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate on the dispute;

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the French Government raises three grounds of appeal against the judgment under appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in failing to raise, of its own motion, a ground concerning the infringement of an essential procedural requirement, even though the Commission had failed to adopt its contested decision within a reasonable period.
   By its second ground of appeal, raised in the alternative, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had not misinterpreted Articles 10 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (2) (‘Regulation No 1975/2006’) by imposing on the French authorities the obligation to count animals during the on-the-spot controls carried out in relation to ICHN (Indemnités compensatoires des handicaps naturels; compensatory allowances for natural handicaps) aid measures.
   By its third ground of appeal, raised in the further alternative, the French Government argues that the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the on-the-spot controls carried out in the context of managing the identification of bovine or sheep premiums do not constitute on-the-spot checks in accordance with Article 12 et seq. of Regulation No 1975/2006.
   Consequently, the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it rejects the first plea raised by the French Government in favour of annulment of the Commission’s contested decision.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-411/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg): Angelo Ferlini v Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg (Workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Equal treatment — Persons not affiliated to the national social security scheme — Officials of the European Communities — Application of scales of fees for medical and hospital expenses connected with childbirth)

text:
C 335/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 1 of Council                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordi-
nation of procedures for the award of public works contracts
(OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                                               of 3 October 2000
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:                                   in Case C-411/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Tribunal d’Arrondissement, Luxembourg): Angelo
                                                                                Ferlini v Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg (1)
1.    The expression ‘financed… by [one or more contracting
      authorities]’ in Article 1(b), second subparagraph, third indent,
      of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to            (Workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Equal treat-
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service        ment — Persons not affiliated to the national social security
      contracts, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993                scheme — Officials of the European Communities —
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts      Application of scales of fees for medical and hospital
      and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning                           expenses connected with childbirth)
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
      contracts, properly construed, includes awards or grants paid by
      one or more contracting authorities for the support of research
      work and student grants paid by local education authorities to                                  (2000/C 335/33)
      universities in respect of tuition for named students. Payments
      made by one or more contracting authorities either in the
      context of a contract for services comprising research work or as
      consideration for other services such as consultancy or the
      organisation of conferences do not, by contrast, constitute public                        (Language of the case: French)
      financing within the meaning of those directives.
2.    On a proper construction, the term ‘for the most part’ in Article
      1(b), second subparagraph, third indent, of Directives 92/50,         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      93/36 and 93/37 means ‘more than half’.                                                  in the European Court Reports)
3.    In order to determine correctly the percentage of public financing
      of a particular body account must be taken of all of its income,      In Case C-411/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      including that which results from a commercial activity.              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
                                                                            d’Arrondissement (District Court), Luxembourg, for a prelimi-
                                                                            nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                            between Angelo Ferlini and Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg
4.    The decision as to whether a body such as the University of
                                                                            — on the interpretation, first, of the first paragraph of Article
      Cambridge is a ‘contracting authority’ must be made annually
                                                                            6 and Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the
      and the budgetary year in which the procurement procedure
                                                                            first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 39 EC), of
      commences must be regarded as the most appropriate period for
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
      calculating the way in which that body is financed, so that the
                                                                            1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
      calculation must be made on the basis of the figures available
                                                                            Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as
      at the beginning of the budgetary year, even if they are
                                                                            amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of 9 Februa-
      provisional. A body which constitutes a ‘contracting authority’
                                                                            ry 1976 amending the provisions relating to the trade union
      for the purposes of Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37 when
                                                                            rights of workers contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
      a procurement procedure commences remains, as far as that
                                                                            (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 2), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No
      procurement is concerned, subject to the requirements of those
                                                                            1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
      directives until such time as the relevant procedure has been
                                                                            schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
      completed.
                                                                            to members of their families moving within the Community,
                                                                            as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                            2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), and, second,
                                                                            of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and
                                                                            R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and
                                                                            V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/19
The application, on a unilateral basis, by a group of healthcare            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
providers to EC officials of scales of fees for medical and hospital
maternity care which are higher than those applicable to residents          2.    Orders Industrie des Poudres Sphériques to pay the costs;
affiliated to the national social security scheme constitutes discrimi-
nation on the ground of nationality prohibited under the first
paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the          3.    Orders Péchiney Électrométallurgie, the Chambre Syndicale de
first paragraph of Article 12 EC), in the absence of objective                    l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électrochimie and the Commission of
justification in this respect.                                                    the European Communities each to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                   (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999, p. 17.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 3 October 2000                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v                                               of 3 October 2000
                Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case C-9/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Appeal — Anti-dumping — Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88                        the Cour d’Appel de Grenoble, France): Échirolles Distri-
— Calcium metal — Admissibility — Re-opening of an                              bution SA v Association du Dauphiné and Others (1)
anti-dumping procedure after annulment of the regulation
 adopting an anti-dumping duty — Right to a fair hearing)
                                                                                (National legislation on book prices)
                            (2000/C 335/34)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/35)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques, estab-                                    in the European Court Reports)
lished in Annemasse (France), represented by C. Momège, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch — appeal against the                   In Case C-9/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel
Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of                        (Court of Appeal), Grenoble, for a preliminary ruling in the
15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 Industries des Poudres                       proceedings pending before that court between Échirolles
Sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939, seeking to have                    Distribution SA and Association du Dauphiné and Others —
that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings               on the interpretation of Articles 3(c) and (g) of the EC Treaty
being: Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt                  (now, after amendment, Article 3(c) and (g) EC), 3a and 5 of
assisted by P. Bentley) Commission of the European Communi-                 the EC Treaty (now Articles 4 EC and 10 EC), the second
ties, (Agents: N. Khan and X. Lewis) Péchiney Électrométallur-             paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
gie, established in Courbevoie (France) Chambre Syndicale de                ment, the second paragraph of Article 14 EC) and Articles
l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électrochimie, established in Paris          102a and 103(3) and (4) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 98 EC
(France), represented by O. d’Ormesson and O. Prost, of                     and 99(3) and (4) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
the Paris Bar — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                     of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,                    Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
A. La Pergola, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges;               V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it:                                    judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-463/16: Action brought on 22 August 2016 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/44

         Action brought on 22 August 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-463/16)
   (2016/C 392/58)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2016) 3753 of 20 June 2016, notified on 21 June 2016, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 8 984 891,60 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with cross-compliance, in the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16), and of the second paragraph of Article 54(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 26 and Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging failure to state reasons.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law alleging infringement of the ‘ne bis in idem’ principle.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-457/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Diageo Deutschland GmbH (Free movement of goods — Directive 75/106/EEC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States — Liquids in prepackages — Making up by volume — Article 5(3)(b) and (d) — Baileys Minis — Marketing in prepackages with a nominal volume of 0,071 litre)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Diageo Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-457/05) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Directive 75/106/EEC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States - Liquids in prepackages - Making up by volume - Article 5(3)(b) and (d) - Baileys Minis - Marketing in prepackages with a nominal volume of 0,071 litre)
   (2007/C 315/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Wiesbaden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV

      Defendant: Diageo Deutschland GmbH
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Landgericht Wiesbaden — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Validity of the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 5(3)(b), in conjunction with Article 5(3)(d) and Annex III, section 4, of Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids (OJ 1975 L 42, p. 1), as amended — Prohibition on the marketing in other Member States of alcoholic drinks in packaging with a volume of 0,071 litre which are lawfully manufactured and marketed in Ireland or the United Kingdom — Baileys Minis
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of Article 5(3)(b) of Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, prepackages with a nominal volume of 0,071 litre which contain one of the products listed in section 4 of Annex III to that directive and which are lawfully manufactured and marketed in Ireland or the United Kingdom may also be marketed in the other EC Member States.
   The final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 5(3)(b) of Directive 75/106, as amended by that act, read in conjunction with Article 5(3)(d) thereof is invalid in so far as it excludes the nominal volume of 0,071 litre from the harmonised Community range of nominal volumes appearing in column I of section 4 of Annex III to that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2007.


title: Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with a view to expediting proceedings

text:
C 28/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.1.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of                     —     The Court’s decision will be taken in the light of each
   First Instance with a view to expediting proceedings                       individual case, having regard to the particular urgency
                                                                              of the matter, the circumstances of the case and the
                                                                              question whether, in view of its complexity and the
                        (2001/C 28/48)                                        volume of the pleadings lodged, the case lends itself to
                                                                              essentially oral argument.
On 6 December 2000 the Court of First Instance adopted
various amendments to its Rules of Procedure with a view to
expediting proceedings (OJ L 322 of 19 December 2000).
Those amendments will enter into force on 1 February 2001.              2.    Elimination of a second exchange of pleadings — amendment
                                                                              of Article 47
The amendments in question chiefly concern:
                                                                        Where, following the lodgement of the defence, the case-file is
(1) the introduction of an expedited (‘fast track’) procedure;          sufficiently comprehensive to enable the parties to elaborate
                                                                        their pleas and arguments in the course of the oral procedure,
                                                                        the Court may decide that no reply or rejoinder is to be lodged.
(2) the possibility of the Court dispensing with a second               Upon application by the parties, they will be allowed more
     exchange of pleadings;                                             time for the presentation of oral submissions, so that they may
                                                                        elaborate their arguments at the hearing.
(3) the shortening of the time-limit for intervening;
(4) the use of modern means of communication and the
     simplification of the rules concerning extensions of time          3.    Abridgement of the time-limit for intervening — amendment
     on account of distance.                                                  of Article 115(1) and addition of a new Article 116(6)
                                                                        —     The time-limit for intervening is shortened to six weeks
                                                                              from publication in the Official Journal of the notice
1.   Introduction of an expedited (‘fast track’) procedure — new              concerning the initiation of the proceedings.
     Article 76a
                                                                        —     A belated application to intervene made following the
                                                                              expiry of that time-limit and prior to the decision to open
This new type of procedure is designed to deal with cases of a                the oral procedure will be allowed, but the intervener
particularly urgent nature which do not lend themselves to the                concerned may only submit oral observations at the
adoption of interim measures of the kind which may be                         hearing, based solely on the Report for the Hearing as
ordered in proceedings for interim relief. The cases in question              communicated to him.
include, for example, actions concerning public access to
administrative documents held by the institutions or decisions
regarding the control of mergers and takeovers.
                                                                        4.    Use of modern means of communication — new Article 43(6),
—    Under the expedited procedure, the emphasis will be                      amendment of Articles 44(2) and 100; and simplification of
     placed on the oral procedure. The Court will devote more                 the rules governing extensions of time on account of distance
     time to it, allowing all aspects of the case to be argued                — amendment of Article 102(2)
     comprehensively and in depth.
—    The written procedure will in principle be limited to the          Extended provision is made for the use of faxes or other
     application and the defence. There will be no second               technical means of communication for the purposes of
     exchange of pleadings or any lodgement of statements in            correspondence between the Court Registry and the parties’
     intervention.                                                      lawyers and agents. The ability to transmit documents instan-
                                                                        taneously no longer warrants the existence of differentiated
                                                                        time-limits on account of distance which vary according to the
—    The pleadings lodged must be brief and concise.                    physical location of the parties.
—    The case will be given priority.                                   —     The lodging of procedural documents in such a way as to
                                                                              comply with time-limits, in the form of a copy of the
—    An application for a case to be determined under an                      signed original sent by way of fax or attachment (scanned
     expedited procedure must be made by a separate docu-                     copy) of an e-mail (address: cfi.registry@curia.eu.int) is
     ment lodged at the same time as the application initiating               permitted on condition that the signed original is received
     the proceedings or the defence, as the case may be.                      at the Registry no later than ten days thereafter.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 28/27
—     The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,                       —     the promotions were decided upon in the absence
      provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed                         of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
      to service being effected in that way.                                         document to palliate its absence;
—     Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being                    —     the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and
      effected in that way, the statement of an address for
      service in Luxembonrg is optional.
                                                                               —     the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
                                                                                it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
—     There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the                      system of awarding points which disregards the
      time-limit on account of distance, regardless of the                           ‘Guide de la notation’.
      location of the party concerned.
Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
                                                                                Pen against European Parliament
Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-                                                 (Case T-353/00)
 gens against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2001/C 28/50)
                        (Case T-351/00)
                         (2001/C 28/49)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing in St Cloud
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                (France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 November 2000 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         —     declare the contested measure null and void;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     ages;
      Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
      in the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
                                                                         contests the decision taken by the President of the European
—     Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and            Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
      breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no                 with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
      reasons have been provided for the contested decision.             the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
                                                                         direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
—     Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff                Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
      Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-           Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
      ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:                        found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.


title: Case T-215/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2007 — SIGLA v OHIM — Elleni Holding (VIPS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark VIPS — Earlier national word mark VIPS — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Principle that the parties delimit the subject matter of the proceedings — Rights of the defence)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2007 — SIGLA v OHIM — Elleni Holding (VIPS)
   (Case T-215/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark VIPS - Earlier national word mark VIPS - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Principle that the parties delimit the subject matter of the proceedings - Rights of the defence)
   (2007/C 95/71)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: SIGLA SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Elleni Holding BV (Alphen aan de Rijn, Netherlands)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2003 (Case R 1127/2000-3) relating to opposition proceedings between SIGLA SA and Elleni Holding BV
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2003 (Case R 1127/2000-3);

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Market economy treatment — Individual treatment — Sampling — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Injury — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council
   (Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Injury - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2010/C 113/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd (Yongjia, China) (Case T-407/06) and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd (Wenzhou, China) (Case T-408/06) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, actig as Agents); Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex (represented by: G. Celona, P. Tabellini and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

      Re:

   Applications for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


C 158/20               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.7.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of                               Removal from the register of Case C-339/01 ( 1)
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (2003/C 158/33)
                         (Case C-218/03)
                         (2003/C 158/32)
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-339/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before               Vorarlberg): Kurt Beck.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser, and N. Yerrell, of the         (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/80/EC ( 1) of 15 December 1997 on                     Removal from the register of Case C-343/01 ( 1)
      the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on
      sex, or in any event by failing to communicate such
      provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                                  (2003/C 158/34)
      obligations under that directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-343/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Vorarlberg): Christian Kröll.
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member State
to which it is addressed.
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions                 Removal from the register of Case C-357/01 ( 1)
of the Community.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/35)
The Hellenic Republic has not contested the fact that it must
take measures to comply with the above-mentioned directive.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
The Commission has ascertained that the Hellenic Republic                from the register of Case C-357/01 (Reference for a preliminary
has not as yet taken appropriate measures to incorporate the             ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.                 Vorarlberg): Manfred Laaber.
( 1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 6.                                           (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: Case C-150/06 P: Order of the Court of 13 March 2007 — Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA, v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Directive 67/548/EEC — Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy — Action for damages — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/21

         Order of the Court of 13 March 2007 — Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA, v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland
   (Case C-150/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 67/548/EEC - Refusal to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Breach of the right to an effective legal remedy - Action for damages - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   (2007/C 96/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica SA (represented by: C. Mereu and K. van Maldegem, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, Agents), Republic of Finland
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03 Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission, in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible an action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2003)430245 of 20 August 2003, rejecting the applicant's request to withdraw rosin from the list of dangerous substances set out in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 196, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA and Cray Valley Iberica SA shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-165/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v Profitube spol. s r.o. (Sixth VAT Directive — Applicability — Community customs code — Goods from a non-member State placed under the customs warehousing procedure in the territory of a Member State — Processing of the goods under inward processing arrangements in the form of a system of suspension — Goods sold and placed once again under the customs warehousing procedure — Goods kept in the same customs warehouse during all the transactions — Supply of goods effected for consideration in national territory — Chargeable event for VAT)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v Profitube spol. s r.o.
   (Case C-165/11) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Applicability - Community customs code - Goods from a non-member State placed under the customs warehousing procedure in the territory of a Member State - Processing of the goods under inward processing arrangements in the form of a system of suspension - Goods sold and placed once again under the customs warehousing procedure - Goods kept in the same customs warehouse during all the transactions - Supply of goods effected for consideration in national territory - Chargeable event for VAT)
   2013/C 9/17
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

      Defendant: Profitube spol. s r.o.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Arts 3(3), 37(2), 79, 84, 98, 114 and 166 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), Arts 2, 3, 5(1), 7, 10, 16 and 33a of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and Article 1, point 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Goods placed after their importation from a non-member State in a public customs warehouse of the Member State, to be subsequently processed in that customs warehouse under the inward processing system in the form of the suspension system and finally passed on, without release into free circulation, by the processor in the same warehouse to another company of the same Member State and again placed under the customs warehouse system — Applicability of the VAT system — Meaning of delivery of goods for consideration in national territory — Meaning of abuse of rights — Steel rolls processed into steel sections

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where goods from a non-member State have been placed under the customs warehousing procedure in a Member State, and have then been processed under inward processing arrangements in the form of a system of suspension and subsequently sold and placed once again under the customs warehousing procedure, remaining throughout all those transactions in the same customs warehouse situated in the territory of that Member State, the sale of such goods is subject to value added tax under Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/66/EC of 26 April 2004, unless the said Member State has made use of the facility opened to it to exempt that sale from the tax under Article 16(1) of that directive, which it is for the national court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case F-114/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Bowles, Larue and Whitehead v ECB (Staff case — Staff of the ECB — General adjustment to salaries — Method of calculation — Provisional data — Economic and financial crisis — Special circumstances — Act adversely affecting an official — Pay slip — Provisional act)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/26

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Bowles, Larue and Whitehead v ECB
   (Case F-114/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Staff of the ECB - General adjustment to salaries - Method of calculation - Provisional data - Economic and financial crisis - Special circumstances - Act adversely affecting an official - Pay slip - Provisional act)
   2012/C 138/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Carlos Bowles, Emmanuel Larue and Sarah Whitehead (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary slips for January 2010 and the following months in so far as they apply a salary increase of 2 % as a result of the 2010 salary adjustment procedure and compensation for the material loss suffered by the applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Central Bank to increase by 2 % the remuneration of C. Bowles, E. Larue and S. Whitehead from 1 January 2010, as stated on their salary slips for January 2010 and the following months;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 37.


title: Case C-110/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’edilizia abitativa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contract — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 7 — Evaluation and determination of the technical capacities of the economic operators — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/12

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lg Costruzioni Srl v Area — Azienda Regionale per l’edilizia abitativa
   (Case C-110/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contract - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 7 - Evaluation and determination of the technical capacities of the economic operators - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 249/17)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lg Costruzioni Srl

      Defendant: Area — Azienda Regionale per l’Edilizia Abitativa

      In the presence of: TE.SV.AM. Srl, Alvit Srl, Igit SpA, Planarch Srl, Francesco Auteri

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 19 January 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case F-9/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/20

         Action brought on 29 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-9/13)
   2013/C 215/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to set off the sum corresponding to the costs it was ordered to pay by the General Court in Case T-176/04 against the sum which the applicant is required to pay pursuant to the order in Case T-241/03.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the note of 6 March 2012;

               —

               Annul the decision to effect recovery by offsetting the debt of EUR 1 600 owed by the Commission to the applicant against the sum of EUR 4 875 purportedly owed by the applicant to the Commission, which is denied;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 June 2012 sent by the applicant to the Commission and received by the latter at a date not later than 23 June 2012;

               —

               Annul the note of 27 August 2012 received by the applicant on 9 October 2012,

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant in respect of all the costs incurred in the present proceedings.


title: Case C-217/07: Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/13

         Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-217/07)
   (2007/C 155/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (1),
               and with
               Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2),
               or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               —

               order that the Kingdom of the Netherlands pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing those directives into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44.

      (2)  OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114.


title: Case C-162/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2007 — Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2007 — Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-162/07)
   (2007/C 140/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   La Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA

      Defendants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the last paragraph of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 be construed as a rule that is insufficiently precise, with the effect that the Member States are permitted to apply the VAT scheme set out in that rule to specific situations involving economic, financial or legal links among different persons, or as a rule that is sufficiently precise and which, therefore, once a Member State has decided to adopt that scheme, requires provision to be made for it to be applied in all cases involving the links set out in that rule?

               2.

               (i) Regardless of the reply to be given to question (1), is the imposition of a temporal restriction — in the sense that the link must have existed for a significant period of time — as a precondition for the application of the scheme, where the persons concerned are not permitted to demonstrate that there is a valid economic reason for the link being forged, disproportionate in relation to the objectives of the directive and to the need for compliance with the principle prohibiting the abuse of rights? (ii) Is that legislation to be regarded in any event as contrary to the principle of the neutrality of VAT?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1