title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-233/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus (Finland)): Proceedings brought by KappAhl Oy (Free movement of goods - Products in free circulation - Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden - Derogations - Article 99)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 20/13
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C.                of new Member States to the European Union (OJ L 1,
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)               1.1.1995, p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed
and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General;              of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of
H. von Holstein, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.
3 December 1998 in which it has ruled:                               Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December 1998 in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
1. A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping
     on an island such as Lñsù of any species of bee other
     than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Lñsù              Article 99 of the Act concerning the conditions of
     brown bee) constitutes a measure having an effect               accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
     equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the             Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
     meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                         to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
                                                                     as amended by Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom,
                                                                     ECSC of 1 January 1995 adjusting the instruments
2. A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping            concerning the accession of new Member States to the
     on an island such as Lñsù of any species of bee other           European Union, is to be interpreted as not having
     than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Lñsù              permitted the Republic of Finland to levy, for a period of
     brown bee) must be regarded as justified, under                 three years from its accession to the Community on
     Article 36 of the Treaty, on the ground of the                  1 January 1995, customs duties on imports of products
     protection of the health and life of animals.                   which had already been released into free circulation in
                                                                     another Member State.
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (First Chamber)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 3 December 1998                                                     (First Chamber)
in Case C-233/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 of 3 December 1998
the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus (Finland)): Proceedings                   in Case C-247/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                  brought by KappAhl Oy (1)                          the Cour de Cassation): Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc
(Free movement of goods Ð Products in free circulation               Schoonbroodt, Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL v.
Ð Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria, the                                           Belgian State (1)
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden Ð                      (Article 177 of the EC Treaty Ð Jurisdiction of the Court
                  Derogations Ð Article 99)                          Ð National legislation reproducing Community provisions
                        (1999/C 20/20)                               Ð Relief from customs duties Ð Fuel on board motorised
                                                                            road vehicles Ð Definition of standard tanks')
                                                                                (1999/C 20/21)
                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                                (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
In Case C-233/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                    published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty by the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus
(Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
brought before that court by KappAhl Oy Ð on the                     In Case C-247/97, reference to the Court under Article 177
interpretation of Article 99 of the Act concerning the               of the EC Treaty by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                court between Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt,
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union              Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL and Belgian State
is founded (OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 21), as amended by               Ð on the interpretation of Article 112 of Council
Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of 1 January                 Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
1995 adjusting the instruments concerning the accession              a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ


title: Case C-190/99: Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
7.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 226/17
3. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
                                                                          de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— (Legislation does not comply)                                           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
     Law 38/1995 of 12 December (2) on the right of access to                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     information on the environment does not comply with the                   Council Directive 96/43/EC (1) amending and consolidating
     third indent of Article 3(2) in so far as it provides that the            Directive 85/73/EEC (2) in order to ensure financing of
     public authorities may refuse to provide information where                veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
     it relates to files which have been the subject-matter of                 certain animal products and amending Directives
     actions in the past.                                                      90/675/EEC (3) and 91/496/EEC (4) and/or by failing to
                                                                               inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil
— Further, in imposing an obligation on the public authorities                 its obligations under that Directive, and
     to respond to requests for information ‘as soon as possible
     and within a period of two months’, and to ‘indicate its             — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     reasons for refusing requests for information’, Law
     38/1995 recognises silence on the part of the adminis-
     tration as being sufficient to be an implied rejection of a          Pleas in law and main arguments
     request for information.
— Finally, the necessary legal provisions are not in place                Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), under which a directive shall
     either to establish that information on the environment is           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
     free or to fix the prices to be charges for supplying such           State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
     information; in the latter case, to ensure compliance with           States to observe the period for compliance laid clown in the
     Article 5 of the directive, the charges laid clown may not           directive. That period has expired without Ireland having
     exceed a reasonable cost.                                            enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                          referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
— The Commission considers that, in one specific case,
     the Spanish authorities simply mechanically applied an               (1) of 26 June 1996 (OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1).
     internal rule on charges the application of which is                 (2) of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and
     contrary to Article 5 of the directive because the charge,               controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14).
     which is payable prior to the requested documentation                (3) of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the
     being provided, exceeds a reasonable cost. The Spanish                   organization of veterinary checks on products entering the
     administration failed to take the directive into account and,            Community from third countries (OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1).
     as it acknowledged, the fee was charged not in respect of            (4) of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
                                                                              organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Com-
     the supply of information on the environment but pursu-                  munity from third countries and amending Directives
     ant to national legislation on the supply of technical                   89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991,
     studies, without regard being had to the definition of                   p. 56).
     information relating to the environment given in Article
     2(a) of the directive.
(1) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.
(2) Boletin Oficial de España 297, of 13.12.1995.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
                                                                          Crown Office, by order of that Court of 14 April 1999, in
                                                                          the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
                                                                                Home Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur
Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of                                                  (Case C-192/99)
          the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (1999/C 226/28)
                          (Case C-190/99)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                          (1999/C 226/27)                                 Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Crown
                                                                          Office, of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                 of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home
Justice of the European Communities on 21 May 1999 by the                 Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur, on the following questions:


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu v. Council of the European Union (Economic and monetary policy - Council Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Replacement of the name 'ecu' provided for by Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name 'euro' - Action for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/9
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and                              of 24 March 1998
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 March 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:          in Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau and Others
                                                                                v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Remuneration
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                   statements Ð Inadmissibility Ð Time-limits Ð New
                                                                                substantial fact Ð Time-bar)
                                                                                (98/C 151/19)
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                   In Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau, Jeremiah
                                                                   Cadogan, Madeleine Mesenburg, Rainer Moriarty, Anne-
                                                                   Marie Nilles, Teresa Rodrigues, Fernando Simoes, Jean-
                                                                   Louis Spellini, Jeanne Pica-Borruto and Nicole Schulte,
                                                                   officials of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities,       residing    respectively  in   Bertrange
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          (Luxembourg),         Steinsel     (Luxembourg),       Biwer
                                                                   (Luxembourg), Colmar-Berg (Luxembourg), Mamer
                       (Second Chamber)                            (Luxembourg), Mondercange (Luxembourg), Munsbach
                       of 12 March 1998                            (Luxembourg), Bascharage (Luxembourg), Thionville
                                                                   (France) and Leudelange (Luxembourg), represented by
in Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu v. Council of the                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                     European Union (1)                            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange v.
(Economic and monetary policy Ð Council Regulation on              the European Parliament (Agents: Manfred Peter and
certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro        Yannis Pantalis) Ð application for the annulment of the
Ð Replacement of the name ecu' provided for by                    express decisions rejecting the applicants' requests for
Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name euro' Ð                 reimbursement of the sums deducted from their household
     Action for annulment Ð Manifest inadmissibility)              allowance pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff
                         (98/C 151/18)                             Regulations of officials of the European Communities on
                                                                   the ground of the household grant received by their
                                                                   spouses under the collective agreement covering
                                                                   Luxembourg bank employees, and, so far as may be
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   necessary, of the decisions of 15 May and 27 July 1997
                                                                   expressly rejecting their complaints, the Court of First
                                                                   Instance    (Second       Chamber),     composed   of:    A.
In Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu, Member of the                    Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
European Parliament, resident in Chelles (France),                 Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 24 March
represented by Alexandre Varaut, of the Paris Bar, 9 Rue           1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Alfred de Vigny, Paris, against Council of the European
Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ and Ignacio Díez Parra)
Ð application for the annulment of Council Regulation              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June on certain provisions relating
to the introduction of the euro (OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1)        2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy            (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 12 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly
                                                                   Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    inadmissible.
                                                                       Zone) NV against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-43/98)
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                                               (98/C 151/20)
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspar v European Parliament (Officials - Appeal - Reference back to the Court of First Instance - Sick leave - Medical certificate - Annual medical check-up - Conclusions conflicting with the medical certificate)

text:
C 246/24                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
2. The parties shall bear their own costs, including those relating to           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the proceedings on the application for interim measures.
                                                                                of 6 July 1999
( 1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
                                                                             in Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Comparative examin-
                                                                             ation of the merits — Statement of reasons — Token
                                                                             appointment — Equal treatment principle — Discrimination
                                                                             on the grounds of age, sex and nationality — Duty to have
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 due regard to the welfare of officials — Correspondence
                                                                             between grade and duties — Article 27, third paragraph, of
                            of 8 July 1999                                   the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers and procedure —
                                                                             Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of
                                                                             good faith — Right to a temporary posting — Decision on
in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspar v European Parliament (1)                   the grant of a temporary posting — Discretion of the
                                                                             administration — Right to the differential allowance —
                                                                             Fault on the part of the administration — Non-material
(Officials — Appeal — Reference back to the Court of First                   damage — Dismissal of applications for preparatory inquir-
Instance — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Annual                                                         ies)
medical check-up — Conclusions conflicting with the medical
                              certificate)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/49)
                           (1999/C 246/48)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the European
Parliament, residing at Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented
by Lucette Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                In Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché, a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,               former official of the Commission of the European Communi-
30 Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agents: Manfred                   ties, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Peter and Antonio Caiola) — application for annulment of the                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
decision of 22 May 1995 by which the Parliament treated the                  Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
applicant’s absence on 5 May 1995 as irregular and deducted                  supported by Union Syndicale (European Public Service Union)
one day from her annual leave entitlement pursuant to Article                — Brussels, represented initially by Véronique Lebrun and
60 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European                     subsequently by Pierre Monville, both of the Brussels Bar,
Communities, and for annulment, in so far as may be                          against the Commission of the European Communities
necessary, of the confirmatory decision of 9 August 1995 —                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Denis Wael-
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M.                 broeck) — application, in Case T-112/96, for the annulment
Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,          of two decisions adopted by the Commission on 22 May 1996
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             in a procedure for filling an A 2 post in the Legal Service
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 declared vacant by Notice COM/20/96, respectively appointing
                                                                             Mrs D as Principal Legal Adviser at Grade A 2 and rejecting the
                                                                             applicant’s candidature for that post; and, in Case T-115/96, for
1. Dismisses the action;                                                     the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 December
                                                                             1995 rejecting the applicant’s request for, effectively, reclassifi-
                                                                             cation of his post at Grade A 2 as from 1 June 1991 and, in
2. Orders the parties to bear all their own costs in respect of the          the alternative, the benefit of the temporary postings system
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of        — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
      Justice.                                                               J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                                                                             and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             gave a judgment on 6 July 1999, the operative part of which
                                                                             is as follows:
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
                                                                             1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application, made in the
                                                                                action in Case T-112/96, for the annulment of the decision to
                                                                                appoint Mrs D to the contested post;


title: Case C-140/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2004/39/EC — Article 54 — Obligation of professional secrecy incumbent on national financial supervisory authorities — Information concerning a fraudulent investment firm in compulsory liquidation)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/3

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Annett Altmann and Others v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
      (Case C-140/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2004/39/EC - Article 54 - Obligation of professional secrecy incumbent on national financial supervisory authorities - Information concerning a fraudulent investment firm in compulsory liquidation)
      (2015/C 016/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Annett Altmann, Torsten Altmann, Hans Abel, Waltraud Apitzsch, Uwe Apitzsch, Simone Arnold, Barbara Assheuer, Ingeborg Aubele, Karl-Heinz Aubele

         Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

         Intervening party:Frank Schmitt

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 54(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, in administrative proceedings, a national supervisory authority may rely on the obligation to maintain professional secrecy against a person who, in a case not covered by criminal law and not in a civil or commercial proceeding, requests it to grant access to information concerning an investment firm which is in judicial liquidation, even where that firm’s main business model consisted in large scale fraud and wilful harming of investors’ interests and several executives of that firm have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

         (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-456/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Notification to candidates and tenderers of decisions awarding contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Procedures for review of the award of public contracts — Period within which actions for review must be brought — Date from which the period for bringing an action starts to run)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-456/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/37/EEC - Public works contracts - Notification to candidates and tenderers of decisions awarding contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Procedures for review of the award of public contracts - Period within which actions for review must be brought - Date from which the period for bringing an action starts to run)
   2010/C 63/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos, M. Konstantinidis and E. White, agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, agent, A. Collins, SC)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Notification of the decision awarding the contract — Duty to state clearly the time-limit for bringing an action against a decision awarding a public contract

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by reason of the fact that the National Roads Authority did not inform the unsuccessful tenderer of its decision to award the contract for the design, construction, financing and operation of the Dundalk Western Bypass, and

                           —

                           by maintaining in force Order 84A(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, in the version resulting from Statutory Instrument No 374 of 1998, in so far as it gives rise to uncertainty as to which decision must be challenged through legal proceedings and as to how periods for bringing an action are to be determined,

                     Ireland has failed — as regards the first head of claim — to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, and Article 8(2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 and — as regards the second head of claim — to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-540/13: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Imposition of an administrative charge for an error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Language regime — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/55

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA
   (Case T-540/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - REACH - Imposition of an administrative charge for an error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Language regime - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 389/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société européenne des chaux et liants (Bourgoin-Jallieu, France) (represented by: J. Dezarnaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Decision SME (2013) 1665 of the ECHA of 21 May 2013, in so far as it imposes an administrative charge on the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Société européenne des chaux et liants to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case F-136/11: Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/24

         Action brought on 19 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-136/11)
   2012/C 65/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, E. Marchal, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision fixing, in the Community pension scheme, the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before her entry into service

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 annulling and replacing the proposal for transfer of the applicant’s pension rights in the context of her request under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIP adopted on 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-523/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Website of a referencing service provider operating under a country-specific top-level domain of a Member State — Use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to a trade mark registered in another Member State)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH
   (Case C-523/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Website of a referencing service provider operating under a country-specific top-level domain of a Member State - Use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to a trade mark registered in another Member State)
   2012/C 165/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wintersteiger AG

      Defendant: Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Determination of jurisdiction in respect of an action seeking to prohibit the registration of a sign identical to a trade mark with a service provider operating an internet search engine in order that, following the entry of that sign as a search term (‘AdWord’), the screen automatically displays advertising for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark at issue is registered — Situation in which the trade mark is protected in a first Member State and the said display of advertising functions only at the top-level domain of that search engine specific to another Member State, while being accessible from the first Member State and in the official language of that latter State — Criteria for determining the ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action relating to infringement of a trade mark registered in a Member State because of the use, by an advertiser, of a keyword identical to that trade mark on a search engine website operating under a country-specific top-level domain of another Member State may be brought before either the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered or the courts of the Member State of the place of establishment of the advertiser.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-663/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11, BF v Court of Auditors

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/39

         Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11, BF v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-663/13 P)
   2014/C 52/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: BF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-69/11;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance by the Court of Auditors, namely dismiss the action as unfounded;

               —

               order BF to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 6 of Decision 45-2010 of 17 June 2010 on the selection procedures for Heads of Unit and Directors.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence by the Civil Service Tribunal in considering that the scores awarded to the candidates by the Pre-selection Committee constituted information that must be included in the report submitted by the Pre-selection Committee to the appointing authority.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acted in breach of its obligation to examine the facts on the basis of which it found there to be a procedural irregularity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and an error of law undermining the consistency of the case-law in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the irregularity relating to the failure to state reasons required by Article 6(1) of Decision 45-2010 with regard to the report of the Pre-selection Committee is liable to lead to the annulment of the decisions contested at first instance.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 February 2002 in Case T-18/97: Atlantic Container Line AB e.a. v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Liner conferences — Agreement fixing the price of inland transport in the context of intermodal transport — Regulation No 1017/68 — Notification — Immunity — Admissibility)

text:
C 144/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
ed by M. Clough, solicitor-advocate QC, with an address for                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/                                     28 February 2002
34.446 — Trans-Atlantic Agreement) (OJ 1994 L 376, p. 1),
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:                in Case T-18/97: Atlantic Container Line AB e.a. v Com-
K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Y. Mottard,                mission of the European Communities (1)
Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                         (Competition — Liner conferences — Agreement fixing the
                                                                         price of inland transport in the context of intermodal
                                                                         transport — Regulation No 1017/68 — Notification —
                                                                                Immunity — Admissibility)
1.   Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/980/EC of
     19 October 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                                         (2002/C 144/73)
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.446 — Trans-Atlantic
     Agreement);
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2.   Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                         In Case T-18/97, Atlantic Container Line AB, established in
                                                                         Göteborg (Sweden), Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in
                                                                         Seoul (South Korea), DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in
                                                                         Bremen (Germany), Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in
3.   Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay four       Seoul, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore,
     fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and the              Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line), established in Tokyo (Japan),
     interveners, the Freight Transport Association Ltd, the Associ-     Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, established in
     ation des utilisateurs de transport de fret and the European        Levington (United Kingdom), P & O Nedlloyd BV, established
     Council of Transport Users ASBL, including those relating to        in Rotterdam (Netherlands), P & O Containers Ltd, established
     the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-395/94 R and in Case        in London (United Kingdom), Hapag-Lloyd AG, established in
     T-395/94 R II;                                                      Hamburg (Germany), A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in
                                                                         Copenhagen (Denmark), Mediterranean Shipping Company
                                                                         SA, established in Geneva (Switzerland), POL-Atlantic, estab-
                                                                         lished in Gdynia (Poland), Sea-Land Service Inc., established in
4.   Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs;           Charlotte (United States of America), Tecomar SA de CV,
                                                                         established in Mexico City (Mexico), Transportación Marı́tima
                                                                         Mexicana SA de CV, established in Mexico City, represented
                                                                         by J. Pheasant and N. Bromfield, Solicitors, with an address for
5.   Orders the interveners, the Freight Transport Association Ltd,      service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
     the Association des utilisateurs de transport de fret and the       Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), supported by French Republic
     European Council of Transport Users ASBL, to bear one fifth         (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans): Appli-
     of their own costs;                                                 cation for annulment of Commission Decision C(96)
                                                                         3414 final of 26 November 1996 relating to a proceeding
                                                                         under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
                                                                         Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement), the Court of First
                                                                         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
6.   Orders the interveners, the European Community Shipowners’          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Y. Mottard, Legal Secretary, for
     Association ASBL and the Japanese Shipowners’ Association,          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 February 2002, in
     to bear their own costs, including those relating to the            which it:
     interlocutory proceedings in Case T-395/94 R and in Case
     T-395/94 R II.
                                                                         1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                                                                         2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs together with
                                                                               those of the Commission;
(1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994.
                                                                         3.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.


title: Case C-21/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Simon, Evers & Co. GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 — Validity — Imports of products originating in China — Imports of the same products consigned from Thailand — Circumvention — Proof — Refusal to cooperate)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/9

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Simon, Evers & Co. GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
      (Case C-21/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 - Validity - Imports of products originating in China - Imports of the same products consigned from Thailand - Circumvention - Proof - Refusal to cooperate))
      (2014/C 395/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Simon, Evers & Co. GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

         Operative part of the judgment

      Consideration of the question raised by the referring court has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 499/2009 of 11 June 2009 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not.

         (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-175/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 April 2014  — Ralph Prankl

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 April 2014 — Ralph Prankl
   (Case C-175/14)
   2014/C 235/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ralph Prankl

      Defendant: Bundesfinanzgericht

      Question referred

   Are Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC (2) of 14 December 1992 (OJ 1992 L 390, p. 1), to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide that where excise goods (cigarettes) have been released for consumption in a (first) Member State and, without an accompanying document in accordance with Article 7(4) of that directive, have been transported by land to another Member State (Member State of destination) through one or more other Member States (transit Member States) in order to be sold in the Member State of destination, excise duty (tobacco duty) is charged also in a transit Member State?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and amending Directive 92/81/EEC; OJ 1992 L 390, p. 124.


title: Case T-2/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/47

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission
   (Case T-2/08) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - State aid - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 282/90
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and G.-B. Lehr, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/708/EC of 23 October 2007 on the State aid C 34/06 (ex N 29/05, ex CP 13/04) which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in North Rhine-Westphalia (OJ 2008 L 236, p. 10).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 November 1995 in Case C-55/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense): Reinhard Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (Directive 77/249/EEC - Freedom to provide services - Lawyers - Possibility of opening chambers - Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 31 /4             EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
Arbeit ( Federal Labour Office ) — on the interpretation of          other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of          European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and
30 October 1989 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71               Alberto Dal Ferro ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ),
on the application of social security schemes to employed            composed of J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their            Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann,
families moving within the Community and Regulation                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General ;
( EEC ) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                      R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( OJ 1989 No              1995 , in which it:
L 331 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ,                1 . dismisses the appeal;
G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and J. L. Murray
( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General ; H. A.           2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar , has given a
judgment on 23 November 1995 , in which it rules :
                                                                     (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , and                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
as subsequently amending Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of                                  of 30 November 1995
30 October 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
on the application of social security schemes to employed            in Case C-55/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their            the Consiglio Nazionale Forense ): Reinhard Gebhard v.
families moving within the Community and Regulation                  Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di
(EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                                                     Milano ( 1 )
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , does not                  (Directive 77/249/EEC — Freedom to provide services —
prevent a national provision limiting the retroactive effect of      Lawyers — Possibility of opening chambers — Articles 52
applications for family benefits to a period of six months                             and 59 of the EC Treaty)
from being applied to an application by a Spanish national                                      ( 96/C 31 /08 )
for payment as from IS January 1986 of family benefits in
respect of the members of his family resident in Spain.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(>) OJ No C 263 , 29 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                     (Provisional translation• the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Courts Report)
                                                                     In Case C-55/94 : reference to the Court under Article 1 77 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 ( National Council of the Bar ), Italy, for a preliminary ruling
                        (Third Chamber )                             in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Reinhard Gebhard and Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati
                     of 23 November 1995                             e Procuratori di Milano — on the interpretation of Council
in Case C-476/93 P: Nutral SpA v. Commission of the                  Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the
                   European Communities (')                          effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services
      (Appeal — Action for annulment of measures —                   ( OJ 1977, No L 78 , p. 17 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
                          Admissibility)                             Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.
                                                                     Edward ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
                           ( 96/C 31 /07                             Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann , J. L.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevòn, Judges;
                                                                     P. Leger, Advocate General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
          published in the European Courts Report)                   30 November 1995 , in which it rules :
In Case C-476/93 P : Nutral SpA, established at                       1 . The temporary nature of the provision of services,
Casalbuttano, Cremona ( Italy ), represented by Emilio                    envisaged in the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EC
Cappelli and Paolo de Caterini, of the Rome Bar, and Mario                Treaty, is to be determined in the light of its duration,
de Bellis , of the Mantua Bar, with an address for service in             regularity, periodicity and continuity.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 1 3b Avenue
 Guillaume — appeal against the order of the Court of First           2 . The provider of services, within the meaning of the
Instance of the European Communities of 21 October 1993                   Treaty, may equip himselfin the host Member State with
in Cases T-492/93 and T-492/93 R Nutral v. Commission                     the infrastructure necessary for the purposes of
 [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1023 , seeking to have that order set aside, the         performing the services in question.
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 2 . 96             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 31 /5
3 . A national of a Member State who pursues a                         of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in         pending before that court between Elisabeth Jacquier, nee
     another Member State where he holds himself out from              Casarin and Directeur General des Impots — on the
     an established professional base to, amongst others,              interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court
     nationals of that State comes under the provisions of the         ( Second Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, President of
     chapter relating to the right of establishment and not            the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler
     those of the chapter relating to services.                        ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                       L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
4 . The possibility for a national of a Member State to                judgment on 30 November 1995 , in which it rules :
     exercise his right of establishment, and the conditions
     for the exercise of that right, must be determined in the         Article 95 of the EC Treaty does not preclude the
     light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the         application of national rules on motor vehicle taxation
     territory of the host Member State.                               which provide for an increase in the progression coefficient
                                                                       of the kind at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as that
5 . Where the taking-up of a specific activity is not subject          increase does not have the effect of favouring the sale of
     to any rules in the host State, a national of any other           vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale of vehicles
     Member State will be entitled to establish himself on the         imported from other Member States.
     territory of the first State and pursue that activity there.
     On the other hand, where the taking-up or the pursuit of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
     a specific activity is subject to certain conditions in the
     host Member State, a national ofanother Member State
     intending to pursue that activity must in principle
     comply with them .
6 . National measures liable to hinder or make less
     attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions:
     they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner;                                          ( Sixth Chamber)
     they must be justified by imperative requirements in the                                   of 30 November 1995
     general interest; they must be suitable for securing the
     attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they           in Case C-134/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     must not go beyond what it necessary in order to                  the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias ): Esso
     attain it.                                                            Española SA v. Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias ( x )
                                                                       (Petroleum products — Obligation to supply a particular
7. Member States must take account of the equivalence of                                                   area)
     diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of                                           ( 96/C 31 / 10 )
     the knowledge and qualifications required by their
     national rules and those of the person concerned.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-134/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de
                                                                        Canarias (High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands,
                        ( Second Chamber )
                                                                       Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                     of 30 November 1995                                before that court between Esso Espanola SA and the
in Case C-l 13/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias on the interpretation of
the French Cour de Cassation ): Elisabeth Jacquier v.                   Articles 3 ( c ), 5 , 6 , 30, 36 , 52, 53 , 56 , 85 and 102 ( 1 ) of the
                Directeur Général des Impôts C )                        EC Treaty, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                        G. Hirsch, acting as President of the Chamber,
 (Article 95 of the Treaty — Differential tax on motor                  G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                               vehicles)                                ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges ; G. Cosmas,
                            ( 96/C 31 /09 )                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                        on 30 November 1995 , in which it rules as follows :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         1 . Articles 3 (c), 52 and 53 of the EC Treaty are not
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                applicable to circumstances wholly internal to a
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Member State, such as where a company which has its
                                                                             head office in a Member State and pursues its activities
 In Case C-l 13/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                there is required to comply with rules whereby the
 of the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court                  regional authorities of a Member State responsible for


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 February 2001 in Case C-408/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Abbey National plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (VAT — Articles 5(8) and 17(2)(a) and (5) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Transfer of a totality of assets — Deduction of input tax on services used by the transferor for the purposes of the transfer — Goods and services used for the purposes of the taxable person's taxable transactions)

text:
C 173/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           16.6.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 22 February 2001
                                                                                of 22 February 2001
in Case C-393/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrative (Portugal)):
Ministério Público, António Gomes Valente v Fazenda
                               Pública (1)                                 in Case C-408/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Abbey National plc v
(Internal taxation — Special tax on motor vehicles —                                   Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
                       Second-hand vehicles)
                           (2001/C 173/15)                                  (VAT — Articles 5(8) and 17(2)(a) and (5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                            Directive — Transfer of a totality of assets — Deduction of
                                                                            input tax on services used by the transferor for the purposes
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        of the transfer — Goods and services used for the purposes
                                                                                of the taxable person’s taxable transactions)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                    (2001/C 173/16)
In Case C-393/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, (Supreme Administrative Court), Portugal for                                     (Language of the case: English)
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ministério Público, António Gomes Valente and
Fazenda Pública — on the interpretation of Article 95 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) the Court                   In Case C-408/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann                   Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von                isional Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 Febru-               pending before that court between Abbey National plc and
ary 2001, in which it has ruled:                                            Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the interpretation
                                                                            of Articles 5(8) and 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive
1.    The fact that the Commission discontinues infringement pro-           77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
      ceedings against a Member State concerning a piece of                 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      legislation has no effect on the obligation upon a court of last      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
      instance of that Member State to refer to the Court of Justice,       ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
      pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty       composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the
      (now the third paragraph of Article 234 EC), a question of            Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;
      Community law in relation to the legislation concerned.               F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in
                                                                            which it has ruled:
2.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty does not permit
      a Member State to apply to second-hand vehicles imported from
      other Member States a system of taxation in which the
      depreciation in the actual value of those vehicles is calculated in   Where a Member State has made use of the option in Article 5(8) of
      a general and abstract manner, on the basis of fixed criteria or      the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
      scales determined by a legislative provision, a regulation or an      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      administrative provision, unless those criteria or scales are         taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
      capable of guaranteeing that the amount of the tax due does           assessment, so that the transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof
      not exceed, even in a few cases, the amount of the residual tax       is regarded as not being a supply of goods, the costs incurred by the
      incorporated in the value of similar vehicles already registered      transferor for services acquired in order to effect that transfer form
      in the national territory.                                            part of that taxable person’s overheads and thus in principle have a
                                                                            direct and immediate link with the whole of his economic activity. If,
                                                                            therefore, the transferor effects both transactions in respect of which
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 value added tax is deductible and transactions in respect of which it
                                                                            is not, it follows from Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388
                                                                            that he may deduct only that proportion of the value added tax which
                                                                            is attributable to the former transactions. However, if the various
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/11
services acquired by the transferor in order to effect the transfer have       1.    Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
a direct and immediate link with a clearly defined part of his economic              of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
activities, so that the costs of those services form part of the overheads           to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of that part of the business, and all the transactions relating to that              of their families moving within the Community, as amended by
part of the business are subject to value added tax, he may deduct all               Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992,
the value added tax charged on his costs of acquiring those services.                laying down transitional provisions for application of Regu-
                                                                                lation No 1248/92, applies to recipients of pensions who,
                                                                                before the date of entry into force of the amendments introduced
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.                                                              by the latter regulation, had already brought proceedings before
                                                                                a national court seeking to obtain the right to the pension
                                                                                by contesting the application of the national rules against
                                                                                overlapping, even if a final decision in those proceedings had
                                                                                not yet been given at the time of the entry into force of the new
                                                                                provisions.
                                                                               2.    It is for the national court to determine, first, whether its
                                                                                national law requires an application for review to be made
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             either to the competent social security institution within the
                                                                                period prescribed and in accordance with the relevant formal
                                                                                requirements, or to the court itself according to the applicable
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                          rules of procedure. Second, it is for that court to ensure that
                                                                                those requirements are not less favourable than those governing
                         of 22 February 2001                                         similar situations under domestic law and that they are not
                                                                                such as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult
                                                                                the exercise of the rights conferred on claimants by Regulation
in Joined Cases C-52/99 and C-53/99 (reference for a                                 No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92.
preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Liège
(Belgium)): Office National des Pensions (ONP) v Giocon-
da Camarotto (C-52/99), Giuseppina Vignone (C-53/99) (1)                       (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended by
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 — Social security Insurance
relating to old age and death — Calculation of benefits —
    Changes to the rules governing calculation of benefits)
                            (2001/C 173/17)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 22 February 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Case C-187/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     in the European Court Reports)                            the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v
                                                                                Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda (1)
In Joined Cases C-52/99 and C-53/99: reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from                   (Inward processing relief arrangements — Regulation (EEC)
the Cour du Travail de Liège (Higher Labour Court, Liège) for                  No 1999/85 — Rate of yield of the processing operation —
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    Authorisation issued by the competent customs authority —
court between Office National des Pensions (ONP) and Giocon-                   Power of that authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield)
da Camarotto (C-52/99), Giuseppina Vignone (C-53/99) — on
the interpretation of Article 95a of Council Regulation (EEC)                                             (2001/C 173/18)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April
1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; S. Alber,                                          in the European Court Reports)
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in                        In Case C-187/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
which it has ruled:                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Supremo


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-179/99 P: Eurofer ASBL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
C 275/2                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      1999 in Case T-137/94 ARBED v Commission;
                                                                             2.    Orders Eurofer ASBL to pay the costs.
2.    Annuls Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February
      1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
      ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices              (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
      engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as it
      concerns ARBED SA;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First
      Instance and the present appeal proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 October 2003
                                                                             in Case C-182/99 P: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                            producers of beams)
                        of 2 October 2003                                                             (2003/C 275/04)
in Case C-179/99 P: Eurofer ASBL v Commission of the                                            (Language of the case: German)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                                         in the European Court Reports)
                        producers of beams)
                         (2003/C 275/03)                                     In Case C-182/99 P, Salzgitter AG, formerly Preussag Stahl
                                                                             AG, established in Salzgitter (Germany), (represented by
                   (Language of the case: German)                            H. Satzky and C. Frick): Appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                                                                             Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       T-148/94 Preussag v Commission [1999] ECR II-613, seeking
                   in the European Court Reports)                            to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund), the
                                                                             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
                                                                             the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rappor-
In Case C-179/99 P, Eurofer ASBL, established in Luxembourg                  teur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
(Luxembourg), (represented by N. Koch): Appeal against the                   M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it:
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94 Eurofer v Commission
[1999] ECR II-263, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,                        2.    Orders Salzgitter AG to pay the costs.
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                 (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it: