title: Case T-437/03: Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Anne-Marie Mathieu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 59/30               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      the applicant any additional seniority and therefore
                                                                                reclassified her in Grade C 4, first step, instead of
—     Declare that the Commission was under a duty to define                     Grade C 4, third step;
      its position in respect of that part of Gibtelecom’s
      complaint concerning an infringement of Article 86 (1)
      EC in conjunction with Article 12 and/or Article 49 EC;
                                                                          —      In so far as necessary, annul the express decision of the
—     Declare that the Commission, by not defining its position                  appointing authority of 11 September 2003, notified
      within two months of Gibtelecom’s letter of formal notice                  to the applicant on 16 September 2003, dismissing
      of 18 August 2003, in respect of that part of its complaint                complaint No R/222/03;
      concerning an infringement of Article 86 (1) EC in
      conjunction with Article 12 and/or Article 49 EC, failed
      to act;
                                                                          —      Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
—     Call upon the Commission to act by adopting a decision                     ings.
      on that part of Gibtelecom’s complaint concerning an
      infringement of Article 86 (1) EC in conjunction with
      Article 12 and/or Article 49 EC;
—     Order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs;
—     Alternatively, annul the Commission’s decision of
      17 October 2003 (Reference No D005602) rejecting that
      part of Gibtelecom’s complaint concerning an infringe-              Pleas in law and main arguments
      ment of Article 86 (1) EC in conjunction with Article 12
      and/or Article 49 EC;
—     Order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                          T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade
                                                                          and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled
The pleas and arguments invoked by the applicant are similar              officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the
to those invoked by the same applicant in case T-433/03.                  service. By the contested decision, the Commission granted
                                                                          such a request submitted by the applicant and reclassified her
                                                                          in Grade C 4, Step 1. The applicant is contesting that decision,
                                                                          in so far as it does not award her any additional seniority.
Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Anne-Marie
     Mathieu against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                     In support of her action, the applicant relies on a breach of the
                                                                          Commission’s decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September
                                                                          1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and
                        (Case T-437/03)
                                                                          classification in step on recruitment. She also claims that the
                                                                          Commission has infringed Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations
                         (2004/C 59/48)                                   and the principle of equal treatment by refusing to award her
                                                                          any additional seniority although it awarded the maximum
                   (Language of the case: French)                         additional seniority to other officials whose professional
                                                                          experience is much shorter than hers. Last, the applicant relies
                                                                          on a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 December 2003 by Anne-Marie
Mathieu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-             (1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.
bourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
      20 December 2003 in so far as it did not award


title: Case C-73/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of  19 January 2006  in Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 19 January 2006 in Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-73/06)
   (2006/C 96/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln of 19 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 8 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl and Bundeszentralamt für Steuern on the following questions:

               1.

               Does an undertaking's certificate according to the specimen form in Annex B to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (1) have binding effect or create an irrefutable assumption that the undertaking is established in the State issuing the certificate?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the negative:
               Should the term 'business' in Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Directive be construed as meaning the place where the company has its registered office
               or should it mean the place where management decisions are taken
               or is the crucial factor the place where decisions vital to normal everyday operations are taken?

      (1)  OJ L 331, p. 11


title: Case F-29/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/31

         Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-29/12)
   2012/C 133/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the proposal recalculated by the PMO.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations to be unlawful;

               —

               annul the decisions annulling and replacing the applicants offers concerning the crediting of pension rights;

               —

               annul the decisions to apply to the applicants’ applications to transfer pension rights the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-245/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt — Romania) — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Social provisions — Exceptions — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 3(a) — Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 — Article 2(3) — Regular services providing for the carriage of passengers — Concept — Carriage free of charge organised by an economic operator for its employees, to and from work, in vehicles belonging to it and driven by one of its employees)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/2

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt — Romania) — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)
   (Case C-245/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Social provisions - Exceptions - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 3(a) - Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 - Article 2(3) - Regular services providing for the carriage of passengers - Concept - Carriage free of charge organised by an economic operator for its employees, to and from work, in vehicles belonging to it and driven by one of its employees))
   (2017/C 121/02)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Balş — Judeţul Olt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Casa Noastră SA

      Defendants: Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the service of the carriage by road of workers between home and work, organised by their employer, where the route covered does not exceed 50 km, falls within the scope of the derogation laid down in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006, according to which that regulation does not apply to such a service.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case F-101/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — AA v Commission (Staff cases — Appointment — Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials — Classification in grade — Implementation of a judgment — Loss of opportunity)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — AA v Commission
   (Case F-101/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Classification in grade - Implementation of a judgment - Loss of opportunity)
   2011/C 340/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, later by K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and M. Velardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade AD6, Step 2 and for an order that the defendant pay compensation to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant, by way of compensation for the material loss prior to the delivery of the present judgment, an amount equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the salary, after deduction of social security charges and tax, which he would have received if he had been recruited as an official in intermediate grade A*6 on 1 August 2004 and that, subsequently, his career proceeded in accordance with the advancement in step provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and with the average time spent by an official in each grade, as provided for in Annex I(b) of the Staff Regulations and, on the other hand, the salary, after deduction of social security charges and tax, which the applicant received between 1 August 2004 and the date on which the present judgment was delivered, first, in his capacity as a national civil servant and, from 15 March 2009, in his capacity as an official of the European Union, to which difference must be applied a coefficient of 0,8;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant EUR 120 000 by way of compensation for the material loss subsequent to the delivery of the present judgment;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant the amounts already due pursuant to the present judgment, with default interest from the dates at which those amounts became due respectively and if those dates are prior to 15 March 2009, from the latter date. That interest must be calculated, until the date that payment is actually made, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

               5.

               For the rest, dismisses the action;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs;

               7.

               Orders the applicant to bear one-third of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 13.03.10, p. 52.


title: Case F-54/11: Action brought on 4 May 2011 — ZZ v European Ombudsman

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/30

         Action brought on 4 May 2011 — ZZ v European Ombudsman
   (Case F-54/11)
   2011/C 204/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Ombudsman

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to apply to the applicant the disciplinary measure of dismissal without loss of pension rights. Consequently, a claim to restore the applicant to his post and, in the alternative, to grant him a sum corresponding to the remuneration which he would have received between the date of effect of the dismissal and the date at which he will reach retirement age. In any event, the grant of a sum to the applicant in respect of the non-material damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the disciplinary decision of the European Ombudsman of 20 July 2010 to apply to the applicant the disciplinary measure of dismissal without loss of pension rights;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 18 January 2011 expressly rejecting the complaint;

         In so far as is necessary:

               —

               declare that the annulment of the decision to dismiss carries with it the restoration of the applicant, with retroactive effect from the date of effect of the decision to dismiss, to his position as administrator in Grade A5, step 2, and the payment of those financial entitlements due to him for the whole of that period, together with default interest at 2 points above the interest rate of the European Central Bank;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay a sum corresponding to the remuneration that the applicant would have received from the date of effect of his dismissal in August 2010 until the month in which he will reach retirement age, July 2040, and to the applicant’s adjusted pension rights;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 65 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Ombudsman to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2000 in Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Nĳmegen): Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten (Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme — Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of an occupational pension fund as an undertaking)

text:
C 335/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                            of 12 September 2000
                           of 13 July 2000                                 in Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 (references for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Nijmegen):
in Case C-36/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                       Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège): Idéal Touris-                                         Medische Specialisten (1)
                     me SA v Belgian State (1)
                                                                           (Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme
(VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Transitional pro-                      — Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of
visions — Retention of the exemption for international                             an occupational pension fund as an undertaking)
passenger transport by air — No exemption for international
passenger transport by coach — Discrimination — State                                                   (2000/C 335/04)
                                 aid)
                          (2000/C 335/03)                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (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 Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98: references to the Court
                   in the European Court Reports)                          under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from
                                                                           the Kantongerecht te Nijmegen (Cantonal Court, Nijmegen),
In Case C-36/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                    pending before that court between Pavel Pavlov and Others
Première Instance de Liège, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling              and Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten — on the
in the proceedings pending before that court between Idéal                 interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
Tourisme SA and Belgian State — on the interpretation                      Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — the Court, composed of:
of Articles 12(3) and 28(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive                  G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                      (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common                (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ                 J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version of Council Directive 96/95/EC            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
of 20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the level of                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2000, in
the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/338 (OJ                 which it has ruled:
1996 L 338, p. 89), and of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 87 EC) — the Court (sixth chamber)                1.     Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                           81 EC) do not preclude public authorities from making
Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur)                         membership of an occupational pension fund compulsory at the
and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                              request of a profession’s representative body.
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it has                2.     A pension fund, such as that in question in the main
ruled:                                                                            proceedings, which itself determines the amount of the contri-
                                                                                butions and benefits and operates on the basis of the principle
In the present state of harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   of capitalisation, which has been made responsible for managing
States relating to the common system of value added tax, the                      a supplementary pension scheme set up by a profession’s
Community principle of equal treatment does not preclude legislation              representative body and membership of which has been made
of a Member State which on the one hand, in accordance with Article               compulsory by the public authorities for all members of that
28(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                     profession, is an undertaking within the meaning of Articles
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 85 of the Treaty and 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis                  82 EC and 86 EC).
of assessment, in the version of Council Directive 96/95/EC of
20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the level of the                 3.     Articles 86 and 90 of the Treaty do not preclude the public
standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388, continues to                  authorities from conferring on a pension fund the exclusive
exempt international passenger transport by air, and on the other                 right to manage a supplementary pension scheme for the
hand taxes international passenger transport by coach.                            members of a profession.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case T-234/10: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Ebro Foods v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/26

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Ebro Foods v Commission
   (Case T-234/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 133/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ebro Foods, SA, formerly Ebro Puleva, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Munõz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ebro Foods, SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-516/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Ted-Invest v OHIM — Scandia Down (sensi scandia) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark sensi scandia — Earlier Community word mark SCANDIA HOME — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Ted-Invest v OHIM — Scandia Down (sensi scandia)
      (Case T-516/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark sensi scandia - Earlier Community word mark SCANDIA HOME - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ted-Invest EOOD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Scandia Down LLC (Weehawken, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: G. Farrington, solicitor)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2247/2011-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Scandia Down LLC and Ted-Invest EOOD

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ted-Invest EOOD to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-83/08: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Denki Kagaku Kogyo and Denka Chemicals v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Proof of participation in the cartel — Proof of having distanced oneself from the cartel — Duration of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Guidelines on the method of setting — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expectation — Principle of proportionality — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Denki Kagaku Kogyo and Denka Chemicals v Commission
   (Case T-83/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for chloroprene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Proof of participation in the cartel - Proof of having distanced oneself from the cartel - Duration of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Guidelines on the method of setting - Non-retroactivity - Legitimate expectation - Principle of proportionality - Mitigating circumstances)
   2012/C 80/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan); and Denka Chemicals GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented: initially by G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo and D. Fessenko, and subsequently by T. Franchoo, B. Bär-Bouyssière and A. de Beaugrenier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), in that it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Denka Chemicals GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by decision of that court of 30 June 1995 in the Case of GT-Link A/S v. Danske Statsbaner DSB (Case C-242/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 248/5
( 2 ) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                        that surcharge levied since the Member State's accession
                                                                            to the EC Treaty or does it apply only to the increase in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         the surcharge which came into effect after that date ?
Under Article 5 of Directive 89/665/EEC the Member States               5 . Does Community law impose special requirements with
were to have adopted the laws, regulations and                              regard to national rules on the burden of proving that
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                      the conditions for application of Article 86 of the EC
Directive before 2 1 December 1991 and to communicate the                   Treaty have been satisfied ?
relevant texts to the Commission .
                                                                        6 . If it is assumed that a public undertaking that owns and
The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has only                    operates a commercial port occupies a dominant
partially applied the above Directive with regard to public                 position, can it constitute an abuse of that position,
works contracts but that it has taken no steps at all as                    contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty, that the commercial
regards public supply contracts . In reply to the reasoned                  port levied the duties described above and laid down by
opinion, the Greek authorities informed the Commission                      the Minister for Transport for the use of public and
that they had drawn up a draft Presidential Order to                        private commercial ports ?
incorporate the Directive fully into the Greek legal order.
Since, however, that Presidential Order has not yet been                7. If question 6 is answered in the affirmative : do the
issued, the Commission decided to lodge the present                         persons or undertakings on whom the duty was imposed
application .                                                               have any right under Community law to seek
                                                                            reimbursement or compensation ?
(!) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
                                                                        8 . If it is assumed that a public undertaking that owns and
                                                                            operates a commercial port occupies a dominant
                                                                            position , can an abuse of that position, contrary to
                                                                            Article 86 of the Treaty, lie in the fact that the
                                                                            commercial port does not impose the port duties
                                                                            described in this order for reference on its own ferry
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsretby                  route or on that of its cooperation partner ?
decision of that court of 30 June 1995 in the Case of
            GT-Link A/S v. Danske Statsbaner DSB
                                                                        9 . If the answers to questions 1 , 2, 4 , 6 and/or 8 are in the
                         ( Case C-242/95 )                                  affirmative : can the particular duties and tasks assigned
                           ( 95/C 248/08 )                                  to the defendant result in a finding that the situation is
                                                                            none the less permissible under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                            Treaty ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the 0stre Landsret
( Eastern Regional Court) by decision of 30 June 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 1995 ,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of GT-Link A/S v. Danske
Statsbaner DSB on the following questions :
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etatoi
1 . is a special surcharge of 40 % of a goods duty which, as            the Kingdom of Belgium ( Sixth Chamber ) by judgment of
      described in this order for reference , is ordinarily levied      that court of 14 June 1995 in the case of Myrianne Coen
      for the use of ports authorized by the Danish Minister                                    v. Belgian State
      for Transport to operate as commercial ports to be                                       ( Case C-246/95 )
      regarded as coming under the EC Treaty rules on the
      Customs Union, including Articles 9 to 13 , or under                                       ( 95/C 248/09 )
      Article 95 of that Treaty ?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2 . Are the EC Treaty rules on the Customs Union,                       European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
      including Articles 9 to 13 , or Article 95 to be understood       ( Council of State ) of the Kingdom of Belgium ( Sixth
      as meaning that it is incompatible with those provisions          Chamber ) of 14 june 1995 , which was received at the Court
      to impose a special surcharge of 40 % of the goods duty           Registry on 17 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
      ordinarily levied if that surcharge is imposed exclusively        of Myrianne Coen v. Belgian State on the following
      on goods imported from outside Denmark ?                          questions :
3 . If question 2 is answered in the affirmative : under what           ' On a proper cobstruction of the fifth paragraph of
      circumstances can such a duty be justified on the ground          Article 1 73 of the Treaty of Rome, with respect to the period
      that it represents consideration for a service provided or        of two months prescribed therein for contesting a Decision
      on grounds of transport policy pursuant to the Title in           of the Commission, may a decision of a court of a Member
      the EC Treaty dealing with transport ?                            State, finding an act of the State concerned unlawful , cause
                                                                        time to start running again where the act in question may
4 . If the special surcharge is held to be incompatible with            have influenced the Decision of the Commission which it is
      the EC Treaty, does that finding apply to the whole of            sought to contest ?'


12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/37
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and                         Removal from the register of Case T-l 97/93 (*)
                                others (M                                                           ( 95 /C 208/ 80 )
                           ( 95/C 208/77 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,            Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                        register of Case T-l 97/93 : Friedrich Bethke v. Council of the
register of Joined Cases T-107/93 : Christian Hansen,                    European Union and Commission of the European
T-109/93 : Liesa Thomsen, T-136/93 : Herbert Sonnenberg,                 Communities .
T-153/93 : F. Steensen-Feddersen, T-178/93 : H.-P . Fock,
T-180/93 : E. Ebsen, T-182/93 : R.-D . Tetens, T-192/93 : M.             (') OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Hansen, T-193/93 : H. Ketelsen, T-194/93 : Ch . Jessen,
T-212/93 : H. Thomsen, T-219/93 : H. Johannsen,
T-226/93 : J. Nielsen, T-227/93 : T. Petersen, T-228/93 : J. H.
Sell, T-229/93 : K. Friedrichsen, T-230/93 : K. Ingwersen,
T-232/93 : J. Johannsen, T-236/93 : P. Carstensen,
T-239/93 : P. A. Petersen and T-240/93 : U. Dethlefsen v.                Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93 ,
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                 T-199/93 , T-200/93 and T-204/93 (')
European Communities .
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/81 )
(M OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 ; OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 ; OJ No C 109 ,
     29 . 4 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Joined Cases T-198/93 , T-199/93 , T-200/93 and
       Removal from the register of Case T-122/93 ( )                    T-204/93 : Detlef Maack and Others v. Commission of the
                            ( 95/C 208/78 )                              European Communities .
                  (Language of the case: German)                         m OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-122/93 : Franz-Joseph Kliemann v.
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                             Removal from the register of Case T-17/94 (')
European Communities .                                                                               ( 95/C 208/ 82 )
 (') OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 22 June 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and                  T-17/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                              T-145/93 (')                                Communities .
                             ( 95 /C 208/79 )
                                                                          (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                  (Language of the case: German)
 By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 European Communities ordered the removal from the                             Removal from the register of Case T-228/94 (')
 register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and T-145/93 : Ernst Theis
 and Karl Leonhauser v. Council of the European Union and                                             ( 95/C 208/83 )
 Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ No C 50 , 26 . 2 . 1991 and OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                          By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-516/08: Action brought on 27 Novembre 2008 — Eriksen/Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/51

         Action brought on 27 Novembre 2008 — Eriksen/Commission
   (Case T-516/08)
   (2009/C 44/90)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Heinz Helmuth Eriksen (Ebeltoft, Denmark) (represented by: I. Anderson, advocate)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of 800 000 EUR or such other sum as the Court may considerable just and equitable for past, present and future pain, suffering and diminution of the enjoyment of life from serious impairments to his health resulting from the Commission's capricious and unlawful refusal to enforce the implementation of medical monitoring of former Thule workers for radiation related illnesses and conditions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant or the medical treating facilities or care givers, the future costs of medical treatments and medications to alleviate and or treat his impaired health, referred to in the first claim above, which are not available to him through the socialized medical system of his Member State;

               —

               order the Commission to pay reasonable legal costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant in bringing the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant is bringing an action for non-contractual liability arising from the damages it claims to have incurred as a result of the alleged illegal refusal by the Commission to comply with plenary resolution of the European Parliament (1) and to enforce the application by Denmark of the provisions of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation (2) to the case of workers, including the applicant, involved in a nuclear accident in Thule, Greenland.

      (1)  European Parliament report of 20 April 2007 on the public health consequences of the 1968 Thule crash (Petition 720/2002) [2006/2012(INI)].

      (2)  OJ L 159, p. 1.


title: Case C-575/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 16 November 2011 — Εleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronias

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/36

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 16 November 2011 — Εleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos v Ipourgos Igias kai Pronias
      (Case C-575/11)
      (2012/C 25/70)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Simvoulio tis Epikratias

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Εleftherios-Themistoklis Nasiopoulos

         Defendant: Ipourgos Igias kai Pronias (Minister for Health and Social Welfare)

         Question referred

      For the purposes of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, is the aim of safeguarding the provision of a high level of health services sufficient, taking account also of the principle of proportionality, to justify a restriction on the freedom of establishment, which arises in the system of provisions that are in force in a certain Member State (the host Member State) and that: (a) allow only persons who have a right to engage, in that Member State, in the regulated profession of physiotherapist to carry out certain professional activities, (b) preclude the possibility of partial access to that profession and (c) therefore mean that a national of the host Member State who has acquired in another Member State (the Member State of origin) a qualification which permits him to engage in a profession regulated in the latter Member State that is connected with the provision of health services (but does not permit him, because the requirements of Council Directive 92/51/EEC on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) are not fulfilled, to engage in the profession of physiotherapist in the host Member State) is entirely unable to carry out in the host Member State, by way of partial access to the profession of physiotherapist, just some of the activities coming under the latter profession, that is to say, those which the person concerned has the right to carry out in the Member State of origin?


title: Case T-119/05: Action brought on 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/35

         Action brought on 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-119/05)
   (2005/C 115/63)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V., established in Hoofddorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 17 December 2004 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)in case R 43/2004-2

               —

               allow registration of the Community trade mark 2 778 488

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark concerned:

               A three-dimensional mark of a transparent rectangular container with rounded angles on the underside and sphere like on the upper side, containing speckled blue gel and a large white ball, for goods in class 1 (water softeners etc.) and 3 (laundry preparations etc.) — application No 2 778 488

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal of registration

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

                           —

                           Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94


title: Case C-243/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — FLS Plast A/S v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court — Obligation to state reasons — Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary — Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary — Proportionality — Proceedings before the General Court — Adjudication within a reasonable time)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — FLS Plast A/S v European Commission
   (Case C-243/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court - Obligation to state reasons - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Proportionality - Proceedings before the General Court - Adjudication within a reasonable time))
   2014/C 282/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: FLS Plast A/S (represented by: M. Thill-Tayara and Y. Anselin, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders FLS Plast A/S to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG (Export refunds — Misdeclaration — Meaning of ‘request’ — Sanction — Requirements)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG (1)

   (Export refunds - Misdeclaration - Meaning of ‘request’ - Sanction - Requirements)
   (2005/C 143/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-385/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 30 July 2003, received at the Court on 12 September 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, are to be interpreted as meaning that wrong information contained in a document referred to in Article 3(5) of that regulation, that is, the export declaration or another document used for export, and capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable, gives rise to the imposition of the sanction prescribed by Article 11. That rule applies even if, in connection with the application for payment referred to in Article 47 of that regulation, it is expressly stated that payment of the export refund is not sought for certain products covered by that document.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-135/02: Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/38                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.7.2002
applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1.               European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of                 and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the              Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli-                  & Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its            —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe                    Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted               caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements                £ 25,5 million;
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion.                            —     order that the Commission pay the costs of this appli-
                                                                                cation.
The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use                   Pleas in law and main arguments
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary                   The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the                of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/                    Interpayment Services -v- Commission (1).
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
hearing was restricted.                                                    (1) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
the multisectoral framework on regional aid and that it
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed            Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without              plc against the Commission of the European Communities
withdrawing it.
                                                                                (Case T-135/02)
Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same                                         (2002/C 169/68)
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested                                  (Language of the case: English)
decision.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
                                                                           Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
                                                                           Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).
Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and
Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               munities
                                                                           —     annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of
                          (Case T-131/02)                                        11 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2002/C 169/67)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/39
on Irish Sugar plc. The applicant would point out in this               —     in the alternative, partially annul Decision C (2001) 4447
regard that, as a result of the judgment of the Court of First                final of the Commission of the European Communities
instance of 7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar -v-                   of 15 January 2002 to the extent that the claim for
Commission (1), the fine imposed on Irish Sugar by Com-                       repayment established by the Commission in Article 1
mission Decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997, relating to a                      exceeds EUR 2 808 319,95;
proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty, was
reduced by 916 674 Euros. The defendant refused to pay                  —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
interest on this amount.
According to the Commission, the implied Decision not to                Pleas in law and main arguments
pay interest, i.e. the payment of the principal sum without
interest on 4 January 2000, has become definitive, the
applicant not having contested it within the two month time             In Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission found
limit, as provided by Article 230 of the EC Treaty.                     that the aid amounting to EUR 3 650 860 granted by Germany
                                                                        to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow, was incompatible with the
                                                                        common market. The applicant is challenging that decision
The applicant submits in this regard that this reasoning is             and claims that the declaration of partial incompatibility with
materially wrong. Firstly, the initial request was not for actual       the common market of the aid granted to it infringes
payment but for confirmation that interest would be paid; for           Community law. All the grounds on which the decision is
advice as to the amount thereof and for assistance in this              founded are based on errors of law or on a manifestly incorrect
matter. Secondly, there is no rule in EC Law according to               assessment of the facts.
which silence must be taken to mean a refusal, unless provision
is specifically made for this. Thirdly, not only is payment of
the refund of 916 674 Euros not a refusal of the initial request        The applicant claims that it satisfied the SME criteria defined
for confirmation regarding interest, it is also, within the             in the Commission’s Recommendation of 3 April 1996
meaning of Article 230 EC, not an actionable act. It follows            concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enter-
that the Commission’s contention that the applicant should              prises (1) at the time when the aid was granted. Moreover, the
have challenged it at the time is legally erroneous.                    applicant did not circumvent those criteria.
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant submits that a review of the
(1) [1999] ECR II-2969.
                                                                        economic integration in individual cases which is not based
                                                                        on the SME criteria is illegal because it is precisely those criteria
                                                                        which must be used to determine whether or not there is
                                                                        economic integration. In any event, there is no economic
                                                                        integration.
                                                                        Alternatively, the applicant submits that the claim for repay-
Action brought on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier Malchow                    ment is too high and that its calculation is unclear.
GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 107, p. 4.
                         (Case T-137/02)
                        (2002/C 169/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        Action brought on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink
                                                                        International Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                       (Case T-138/02)
European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier
Malchow GmbH & Co., Malchow (Germany), represented by
S. Völcker and J. Heithecker, lawyers.                                                           (2002/C 169/70)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul in its entirety Decision C (2001) 4447 final of the
      Commission of the European Communities of 15 January              An action against the Council of the European Union was
      2002;                                                             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-152/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 1 April 2014  — AEEG v Antonella Bertazzi and Others

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 1 April 2014 — AEEG v Antonella Bertazzi and Others
   (Case C-152/14)
   2014/C 194/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas (AEEG)

      Respondents: Antonella Bertazzi, Annalise Colombo, Maria Valeria Contin, Angela Filippina Marasco, Guido Guissani, Lucia Lizzi, Fortuna Peranio

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is it possible, in principle, to regard as compatible with Clause 4(4) of the Framework Agreement [in the Annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC (1) a provision of national law (Article 75(2) of Decree-Law No 112 of 2008), under which — in relation to duties which have remained unchanged and which are completely the same for fixed-term staff as for permanent staff — no account whatsoever is to be taken of length of service accrued with independent public authorities under fixed-term employment contracts where the employment position of the persons concerned has been ‘stabilised’ on the basis of selection tests which, albeit not wholly comparable with the more rigorous public competitive examination procedure undergone by other staff members, are provided for by statute and accordingly, under the terms of the third paragraph of Article 97 of the Italian Constitution, a legitimate means of verifying the candidate’s suitability to perform the duties to be assigned?

               2)

                           a)

                           In the event that the above legislation is held to be inconsistent with the principles of Community law as regards the fixed-term employees concerned, is it possible to identify objective reasons for derogating from the principle that those employees should be treated no differently from permanent employees, for considerations relating to social policy purposes, construed in these circumstances as the need to prevent the insertion of ‘stabilised’ employees in parallel with those already placed on the permanent staff in accordance with the general rule requiring a competitive examination for access to posts with the public administrative authorities (the rule imposed by the third paragraph of Article 97 of the Constitution and subject only to derogation by statute, such as the legislation at issue, under which the sole requirement is success in a simple selection procedure) and is it possible — in the light of the Court’s observations in [paragraph] 47 of its order of 7 March 2013 [in Case C-393/11 AEEG v Bertazzi and Others [2013] ECR] — for [the needs underlying] those objective reasons to be regarded as satisfied, in terms of proportionality, merely by giving workers in precarious employment whose position has been ‘stabilised’ personal salary compensation which can be absorbed by future pay rises and is not open to reassessment, with an interruption of the normal advancement in salary level and of access to higher grades?

                           b)

                           On the other hand, if, once suitability for particular duties has been determined, periodic appraisals were undertaken to verify that the duties are being performed correctly, with a view to permitting the employees concerned to progress to higher grades and salary levels with the possibility of moving to a different category on the strength of a competitive examination held later, would that be sufficient to redress the balance between the position of ‘stabilised’ employees and the position of staff members recruited on the basis of a public competitive examination, without it being necessary for length of service to be set at nought and salaries to be set at the starting level in the case of the former group (in the absence, moreover, of any appreciable advantage in favour of the second group under the AEEG rules governing career advancement, as described above), with the result that, in the case under consideration, there would be no objective reasons, of the requisite objectivity and transparency, for derogating from Directive 1999/70/EC that could be applied to the employment conditions in question in the particular context of relevance here?

               3)

               Is it, in any event, necessary — as appears to be a legitimate inference from paragraphs 47 and 54 of the order of 7 March 2013 — to recognise that the practice of setting the length of service accrued at nought is disproportionate and discriminatory (with the consequence that it would be necessary to refrain from applying the relevant national legislation) — while continuing to recognise the need to protect the positions of successful candidates in the competitive examinations, without prejudice to the fact that it is for the administrative authority to decide, on the basis of prudent assessment, upon the measures to adopt in this regard (in the form of a ‘bonus’; or the right of those who have been recruited on the basis of success in a competitive examination to preferential treatment in the selection procedure for access to higher grades; or by other means within the discretion enjoyed by the national authorities for the organisation of the national public administrative authorities)?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-245/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Right of establishment — Adjustments consequent on the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-245/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Free movement of persons - Freedom to provide services - Right of establishment - Adjustments consequent on the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania)
   2009/C 113/22
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-115/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot
   (Case C-115/17)
   (2017/C 178/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Defendants: Hubert Clergeau, Jean-Luc Labrousse, Jean-Jacques Berthellemy, Alain Bouchet, Jean-Pierre Dubois, Marcel Géry, Jean-Paul Matrat, Jean-Pierre Paziot, Patrice Raillot

      Question referred

   Is Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as precluding a situation in which a person is convicted on the ground that he obtained export refunds, to which he was not entitled, by means of deceitful practices or the making of false declarations as to the nature of the goods in respect of which the refunds were requested, although, as a result of changes in the rules which occurred subsequent to the facts of the case, the goods that were in fact exported by that person have since become eligible for those refunds?


title: Case C-335/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of  24 August 2005  in Rizeni Letoveho Provozu UR SP v Bundesamt für Finanzen

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 24 August 2005 in Rizeni Letoveho Provozu UR SP v Bundesamt für Finanzen
   (Case C-335/05)
   (2005/C 315/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) of 24 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Rizeni Letoveho Provozu UR SP and Bundesamt für Finanzen (Federal Finance Office) on the following question:
   Is Article 2(2) of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 (1) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted restrictively as meaning that the possibility thereby afforded the Member States of making refunds of value added tax conditional on the grant by non-Member States of comparable advantages in regard to turnover taxes, does not refer to States which, as contracting parties to the General Agreement on Trade in Services — GATS — (BGBl. II 1994, 1473, 1643), may rely on the most-favoured nation clause contained therein (Art. II(1) GATS)?

      (1)  OJ L 326, p. 40.


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 9 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C-318/03 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BC v Federal Republic of Germany (Free movement of goods — Distinction between medicinal products and food additives — Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import — Marketing authorisation)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 June 2005
   in Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C-318/03 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH, Orthica BC v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Distinction between medicinal products and food additives - Product marketed as a food additive in the Member State of origin but treated as a medicinal product in the Member State of import - Marketing authorisation)
   (2005/C 193/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C 318/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany), by decisions of 7 May and of 4, 3, 7 and 8 July 2003 respectively, received at the Court on 15 May and 11 and 24 July 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between HLH Warenvertriebs GmbH (C-211/03), Orthica BV (C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C-318/03) and the Federal Republic of Germany, intervener: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The classification of a product as a medicinal product or as a foodstuff must take account of all the characteristics of the product, established both in the initial stage of the product and where it is mixed, in accordance with the method by which it is used, with water or with yoghurt.

               2.

               Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety constitutes an additional set of rules in relation to Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, the application of which is precluded to the extent to which a Community rule, such as that directive, contains specific provisions for certain categories of foodstuffs.

               3.

               Only the provisions of Community law specific to medicinal products apply to a product which satisfies equally well the conditions for classification as a foodstuff and the conditions for classification as a medicinal product.

               4.

               The pharmacological properties of a product are the factor on the basis of which the authorities of the Member States must ascertain, in the light of the potential capacities of the product, whether it may, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, be administered to human beings with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings. The risk that the use of a product may entail for health is an autonomous factor that must also be taken into consideration by the competent national authorities in the context of the classification of the product as a medicinal product.

               5.

               A product which constitutes a medicinal product within the meaning of Directive 2001/83 may be imported into another Member State only upon acquisition of a marketing authorisation issued in accordance with the provisions of that directive, even where it is lawfully marketed as a foodstuff in another Member State.

               6.

               The concept of ‘upper safe levels’ in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2002/46 is of no importance for the purposes of drawing a distinction between medicinal products and foodstuffs.

               7.

               In the context of an evaluation by a Member State of the risks that foodstuffs or food supplements may constitute for human health, the criterion of the existence of a nutritional need in the population of the Member State may be taken into consideration. However, the absence of such a need does not in itself suffice to justify, either under Article 30 EC or under Article 12 of Directive 2002/46, a complete ban on marketing foodstuffs or food supplements lawfully manufactured or placed on the market in another Member State.

               8.

               The fact that the discretion enjoyed by the national authorities as regards the establishment of an absence of nutritional need is subject to only limited review by the courts is compatible with Community law, on condition that the national procedure for judicial review of the decisions in that regard taken by those authorities enables the court or tribunal seised of an application for annulment of such a decision effectively to apply the relevant principles and rules of Community law when reviewing its legality.

               9.

               Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients is to interpreted as meaning that a food or a food ingredient has not been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community if, when all the circumstances of the case are taken into account, it is established that that food or that food ingredient has not been consumed in a significant quantity by humans in any of the Member States before the reference date. 15 May 1997 is the reference date for the purpose of determining the extent of human consumption of that food or food ingredient.

               10.

               A national court cannot refer questions on the classification of products to the European Food Safety Authority. An opinion delivered by that Authority, possibly in a matter forming the subject-matter of a dispute pending before a national court, may constitute evidence that that court should take into consideration in the context of that dispute.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003

      OJ C 275 of 15.11.1003


2.8.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 184/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-345/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/54)                                                        (2003/C 184/58)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 14 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-405/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Coopsette Scrl v ANAS, Impresa             from the register of Case C-345/01: Commission of the
Mambrini Costruzioni srl.                                              European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-466/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/59)
By order of 13 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-432/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):            register of Case C-466/01: Commission of the European
Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Milano (A.L.E.R.), Orion SCRL.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and
                            C-74/01 (1)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/56)                                                        (2003/C 184/60)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and C-74/01 (Refer-          register of Case C-146/02: Commission of the European
ence for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwal-              Communities v Republic of Austria.
tungssenat): Dr Manfred Hückel.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-179/01 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-267/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/57)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/61)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 16 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-179/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. v Comune         from the register of Case C-267/02: Commission of the
di Torino, ED.ART. s.r.l.                                              European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.                                            (1) OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/62

         Removal from the Register of Case T-51/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/122)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-51/97 G J Meijer v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.