title: Case C-475/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 May 2015 in Case T-364/12, Harper Hygienics v European Union Intellectual Property Office — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/6

         Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 May 2015 in Case T-364/12, Harper Hygienics v European Union Intellectual Property Office — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)
   (Case C-475/15 P)
   (2016/C 326/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, radca prawny)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clinique Laboratories, LLC
   By order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016, the appeal was declared inadmissible in part and was dismissed as to the remainder.


title: Case C-441/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 24 September 2014  — DI [Dansk Industri], acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 24 September 2014 — DI [Dansk Industri], acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen
   (Case C-441/14)
   2014/C 421/34
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DI [Dansk Industri], acting on behalf of Ajos A/S

      Defendant: Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the general EU law principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age include a prohibition on a scheme such as the Danish one, under which employees are not entitled to severance allowance if they are entitled to an old-age pension financed by their employer under a pension scheme which they have joined before attaining the age of 50 years, irrespective of whether they choose to remain on the employment market or retire?

               2.

               Is it compatible with EU law for a Danish court, in a case between an employee and a private employer concerning payment of a severance allowance which the employer under national law as described in question 1 is exempt from having to pay but where that result is not compatible with the general EU law principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, to undertake a weighing-up of that principle and its direct effect with the principle of legal certainty and the related principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, following that weighing-up, reaches the conclusion that the principle of legal certainty must prevail over the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, with the result that under national law the employer is exempt from having to pay the severance allowance? Guidance is also sought as to whether the fact that the employee, depending on the circumstances, may claim compensation from the State as a result of the Danish legislation’s incompatibility with EU law has an impact on the issue of whether such a weighing-up may be considered.


title: Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-394/98) (1999/C 1/10)

text:
C 1/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
employed in that State for at least three years; however, it       on 1 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
is not required that the parent in question should still           Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal
work or be resident in the Member State in question at the         Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
time when his child wishes to gain access to the                   servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
employment market there.                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 30 October                failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,
1998 in the case of 1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
2. R. Van Dijk, trading as Assco Holland Steigers Plettac              order to comply with Commission Directive 95/12/EC
Nederland, against 1. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and                     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive
                         2. Layher BV                                  92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of
                                                                       household washing machines (1), the Kingdom of
                      (Case C-392/98)
                                                                       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                        (1999/C 1/09)                                  directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
30 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
5 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and 2. R. Van Dijk, trading as               Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and the first
Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland, against 1.               paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and 2. Layher BV on the                   are required to adopt the necessary measures in order to
following questions:                                               implement directives addressed to them prior to the expiry
                                                                   of the time-limit prescribed for doing so. The time-limit in
1. Does the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to                question expired on 1 March 1996 but the Kingdom of
    interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement also               Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
    extend to the provisions of that article which do not
    concern provisional measures to prevent infringement           (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
    of trade-mark rights?
2. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
    Article 50(6), have direct effect?
3. Where an action lies under national civil law against           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    the copying of an industrial design, on the basis of the       Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of
    general rules concerning wrongful acts, and in                 that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of
    particular those relating to unlawful competition, must        Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
    the protection thus afforded to the holder of the right                                   Paderborn
    be regarded as an intellectual property right' within
    the meaning of Article 50(1) of the TRIPs Agreement?                                  (Case C-396/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/11)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                   the European Communities by an order of the
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                            Belgium                                6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
                      (Case C-394/98)
                                                                   Paderborn on the following questions:
                        (1999/C 1/10)
                                                                   According to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               C-37/95 (1) Ghent Coal Terminal NV, in which reference is
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            made to Case C-110/94 (2) INZO), a taxable person can


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 1999 in case T-199/97: Patricia Maugain v Commission of the European Communities (Member of the temporary staff - Contract for a limited period - Possibility of its being extended - Action for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
15.5.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 136/15
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicants claims that the Court should:
                      of 15 January 1999                                 — annul the decision made on 4 November 1998, rejecting
                                                                             the complaint submitted by the applicant to the appointing
                                                                             authority on 4 June 1998 by which he contested the
in case T-199/97: Patricia Maugain v Commission of the                       decision adopted on 6 March 1998 by the Settlements
                   European Communities (1)                                  Office, Luxembourg, refusing to grant prior authorisation
                                                                             for reimbursement of the cost of a thalassotherapy cure at
(Member of the temporary staff — Contract for a limited                      Quiberon during the course of 1998;
period — Possibility of its being extended — Action for
            annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                        (1999/C 136/33)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant contests the refusal by the Settlements Office of
                                                                         the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme to cover the cost of a
                                                                         thalassotherapy cure during the course of 1998.
In case T-199/97: Patricia Maugain, a member of the temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the              He pleads in that regard infringement of Article 25 of the Staff
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Regulations, together with a manifest error of assessment, in
office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v                   that neither the contested decision nor any preparatory act
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                brought to his notice explains in detail the medical reasons
Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for             which prompted the Settlements Office to refuse to cover the
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 August 1996                 cost, whereas the expense of such a cure had been borne by
expressly rejecting a request by the applicant for an extension          the Joint Scheme on several occasions in previous years and
of her contract as a member of the temporary staff and, in the           the applicant’s medical situation has not improved in any way
alternative, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of the           in the interim.
20 March 1997 expressly rejecting her complaint — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 January 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed;
                                                                         Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Sociedade
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                      Agrı́cola dos Arinhos, Lda and Others against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                                                (Joined Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Action brought on 4 February 1999 by Philippe Pipeaux                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
               against the European Parliament                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 February 1999 by Sociedade
                         (Case T-34/99)                                  Agrı́cola dos Arinhos, Lda, Sociedade Agrı́cola do Monte da
                                                                         Aldeia, Lda, António José da Veiga Teixeira, Sociedade Agrı́cola
                                                                         Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA, Sociedade Agrı́cola de
                        (1999/C 136/34)                                  Perescume, SA, Sociedade Agrı́cola Couto do Fornilhos, SA,
                                                                         casa Agrı́cola da Raposeira, Lda, José de Barahona Núncio,
                                                                         Prestase — Prestação de Serviços e Contabilidade, Lda, Socieda-
                   (Language of the case: French)                        de Agro-Pecuária da Herdade do Zambujal Lda, Francisco Luı́s
                                                                         Pinheiro Caldeira, Sociedade Agrı́cola Cabral de Ascenção, Lda,
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             and Joaquin Inácio Passanha Braancamp Sobral, residing and
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               established in Portugal, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz
4 February 1999 by Philippe Pipeaux, residing at Mensdorf                and Júlia Rôla Roque, of the Lisbon Bar, with an adress for
(Luxembourg), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer, of                     service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31
187 Chaussée de la Hulpe, Brussels.                                      Grand-rue.


title: Case T-498/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/42

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission
   (Case T-498/08)
   (2009/C 32/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Lübeck Blankensee airport.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case C-234/07: Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/16

         Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-234/07)
   (2007/C 155/31)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to ensure in practice, to the extent technically feasible, that information on the location of callers, for all calls made to the European emergency number 112, is made available to the authorities responsible for handling emergencies, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 24 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.


title: Case C-487/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 11 October 2010 — L’Océane Immobilière SAS v Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 11 October 2010 — L’Océane Immobilière SAS v Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest
   (Case C-487/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/55
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Rennes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: L’Océane Immobilière SAS

      Defendant: Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest

      Question referred

   Does Article 5 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) allow a Member State to maintain in force or establish a provision imposing value added tax on the supply by a taxable person to itself of property for the use of its business, although that supply gives rise to a right to deduct the value added tax thereby levied immediately and in full?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-18/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — IMI and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tubes sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Interruption of participation — Fines — Limited participation in the cartel)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — IMI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-18/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tubes sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Interruption of participation - Fines - Limited participation in the cartel)
   2010/C 179/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: IMI plc (Birmingham, Warwickshire, United Kingdom); IMI Kynoch Ltd (Birmingham); and Yorkshire Copper Tube (Liverpool, Merseyside, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (1) annulment of Article 1(h) to (j) and Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); and (2) in the alternative, reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(h) to (j) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) in so far as it relates to the period from 1 December 1994 to 11 April 1996;

               2.

               Determines the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd and Yorkshire Copper Tube in Article 2(f) of Decision C(2004) 2826 at EUR 38.556 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and 40 % of the costs incurred by IMI, IMI Kynoch and Yorkshire Copper Tube;

               5.

               Orders IMI, IMI Kynoch and Yorkshire Copper Tube to bear 60 % of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of Texaco A/S v. Port of Middelfart and Others (Case C-114/95)

text:
No C 159/8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, a member of
                                                                      the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                Kremlis , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1 January 1993 . Contrary to what the defendant maintains,
complete and correct implementation of the Directive was              The applicant claims that the Court should :
not made impossible by the fact that the additional
provisions envisaged in Article 13 of the Directive,                  déclaré that the Italian Republic:
concerning loading density and the feeding, watering and
rest intervals to be observed, remain outstanding.                    — by failing to communicate the necessary provisions by
                                                                            law, regulation or administrative action to comply with
(M OJ No L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p . 17 .                                  Council Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ( a ) of 17 September 1990
                                                                            on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
                                                                            the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                            sectors , or by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
                                                                            comply therewith, in breach of Article 37 ( 1 ) of that
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of                        Directive, and
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                      — by failing to adopt by law, regulation or administrative
                              Germany
                                                                            action the necessary provisions to comply with Council
                       ( Case C-108/95 )                                    Directive 92/50/EEC ( 2 ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                          ( 95/C 159/16 )                                   coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                            service contracts, and in any event by failing to
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                       communicate such provisions, in breach of the first
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         subparagraph of Article 44 ( 1 ) of that Directive,
Communities on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-79/95 ; the time limits for implementation expired on
     time limit the measures necessary to comply with                  1 July 1992 ( Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ) and 1 July 1993
     Commission Directive 93/ 17/EEC of 30 March 1993                 ( Directive 92/50/EEC ).
     determining Community grades of basic seed potatoes,
     together with the conditions and designations                    (•) OJ No L 297, 29 . 10 . 1990 , p . 1 .
     applicable to such grades ( ! ), the Federal Republic of         ( 2 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty and under that Directive;
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by
                                                                      decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Texaco A/S v. Port of Middelfart and Others
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                      ( Case C-1 14/95
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                                             ( 95/C 159/ 18
 1 June 1993 .
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No L 106 , 30 . 4 . 1993 , p . 7.                              European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                                                                       ( Eastern Regional Court ) of 24 March 1995 , which was
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Texaco A/S v. Port of
                                                                      Middelfart and Others on the following questions:
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                1 . Must the compatibility with Community law of a 40 %
                        ( Case C-1 13/95 )
                                                                             surcharge on a general goods duty, which is levied by a
                                                                             Member State when goods are imported by ship from
                           ( 95/C 159/17)                                    another Member State, be assessed in the light of:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    (A ) — Articles 9 to 13 of the EC Treaty, if necessary in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                    conjunction with Articles 18 to 29 and Council
31 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 159/9
               on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and           received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1 995 , for a
               on the Common Customs Tariff (*) adopted                 preliminary ruling in the case of Olieselskabet Danmark
               pursuant thereto, or Article 95 of the EC                A.m. b.a . v. Trafikministeriet and Others on the following
               Treaty ?                                                 questions :
            — Or in so far as it is assumed that the case relates
                                                                        1 . Must the compatibility with Community law of a 40 %
               to services in respect of which consideration is             surcharge on a general goods duty, which is levied by a
               paid , under:                                                Member State when goods are imported by ship from
      ( B ) — Article 84 of the EC Treaty and Council                       another Member State, be assessed in the light of:
               Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December
               1986 applying the principle of freedom to                    ( A) — the Treaty rules on the Customs Union,
               provide services to maritime transport between                         including Articles 9 to 13 , if necessary in
               Member States and between Member States                                conjunction with Articles 18 to 29 and Council
               and third countries (2 )? Or                                           Regulations ( EEC ) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968
                                                                                on the Common Customs Tariff ( J ) and ( EEC )
            — Articles 90 and 86 of the EC Treaty on abuse of                         No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
               a dominant position, in which connection the                           statistical nomenclature and on the Common
               question arises as to whether Council                                  Customs Tariff ( 2 ) adopted pursuant thereto,
               Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 of 22 December                           or Article 95 of the Treaty ?
               1986 laying down -detailed rules for the
               application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty                        or :
               to maritime transport ( 3 ) is relevant for
               determining whether the surcharge is                         ( B ) — Article 84 of the Treaty and Council Regulation
               compatible with Community law ?                                        ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986
                                                                                applying the principle of freedom to provide
2 . Is it consistent with the Community-law provision(s )                             services to maritime transport between
                                                                                Member States and between Member States
      specified in the reply to Question 1 that a 40 %
      surcharge on a general goods duty should be levied on                           and third countries ( 3 )? Or
      imports of goods by ship from another Member
      State ?                                                                     — Articles 90 and 86 of the Treaty on abuse of a
                                                                                dominant position, in which connection the
3 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are                         question arises as to whether Council
      imported by ship into a Member State from a                                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 is relevant for
      non-member country with which the European                                      determining whether the surcharge is
      Economic Community has an agreement containing                                  compatible with Community law ?
      provisions corresponding to Articles 6 and 18 of the
      agreement between the Kingdom of Sweden and the                   2 . Is it consistent with the Community-law provision(s )
      European       Economic           Community,     and     the          specified in the reply to Question 1 that a 40%
      determination is made in the light of such a ( free-trade )           surcharge on a general goods duty should be levied on
      agreement ?                                                           imports of goods by ship from another Member
                                                                            State ?
4 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are
      imported into a Member State directly from a                      3 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are
      non-member country with which the European                            imported by ship into a Member State from a
      Economic Community does not have a ( free-trade )                     non-member country with which the European
      agreement ?                                                           Economic Community had an agreement containing
                                                                            provisions corresponding to Articles 6 and 18 of the
(M OJ No L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .                                      agreement between the Kingdom of Sweden and the
( 2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .                                European        Economic       Community,     and      the
( 3 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 4 .                                determination is made in the light of such a ( free-trade )
                                                                            agreement ?
                                                                        4 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are
                                                                            imported into a Member State directly from a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by                 non-member country with which the European
decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of
                                                                            Economic Community did not have a ( free-trade )
Olieselskabet Danmark A.m.b.a. v. Trafikministeriet and
                                                                            agreement ?
                                Others
                         ( Case C-115/95 )                              5 . Does it follow from Community law that a Member
                           ( 95/C 159/19 )                                  State which has imposed or approved a duty contrary to
                                                                            Community law is liable to repay the duty, even though
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      the proceeds of the duty have been allocated to
European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret                    independent operators subject to local authority
( Eastern Regional Court) of 24 March 1 995 , which was                     control ?


title: Case F-130/14: Action brought on 4 November 2014 — ZZ v European Parliament

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/52

         Action brought on 4 November 2014 — ZZ v European Parliament
   (Case F-130/14)
   (2015/C 034/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Bergin, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to deduct from the applicant’s pension the amount of maintenance the applicant is obliged to pay to his former wife, that being a decision which, according to the applicant, infringes a judgment of a national court in divorce proceedings.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision concerning modification of rights No 13;

               —

               Grant damages and legal costs in the sum of EUR 2 75  000 resulting from the legal costs and expenses incurred and losses suffered by the applicant since the services’ initial refusal to apply the court orders in a correct legal and equitable fashion.


title: Case T-247/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of services relating to the production and dissemination of the Supplement to the OJ and related offline and online media — Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-247/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of services relating to the production and dissemination of the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and related offline and online media - Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 366/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara and. E. Manhaeve, Agents, assisted initially by N. Dimopoulos, Solicitor, then by E. Petritsi, lawyer and lastly by O. Graber-Soudry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the Commission decision of 7 April 2009, rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in response to open Call for Tenders AO 10186 for the production and dissemination of the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union: TED website, OJS DVD-ROM and related Offline and Online media (OJ 2009/S 2-001445), along with the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, second, a claim for damages and interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Removal from the register of C-92/97

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/13
          Removal from the register of C-92/97 (1)                  removal from the register of Case C-121/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/40)                               of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany.
By order of 11 November 1997, the President of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities has                    (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-92/97:
Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
Belgium.
(1) OJ C 108, 5. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-154/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/43)
                                                                    By order of 8 October 1997, the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-96/97 ( ) 1                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-154/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/41)
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of           (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-96/97: Commission of
the European Communities v. French Republic.
(1) OJ C 131, 26. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-201/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/44)
                                                                    By order of 21 October 1997, the President of the Court
         Removal from the register of C-121/97 (1)                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                          (98/C 7/42)                               removal from the register of Case C-201/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against
                                                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: Martin Bauer and
                      of 21 October 1997                            TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of a
                                                                    decision not to promote Ð the Court of First Instance
in Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis v. Council of the
                                                                    (Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                      European Union (1)
                                                                    C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
                                                                    a judgment on 21 October 1997, the operative part of
(Officials Ð Decision not to promote Ð Consideration of
                                                                    which is as follows:
comparative merits Ð Leave on grounds of sickness and
accident Ð Account taken of the work actually done
                 during the reference period)
                          (98/C 7/45)                               1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                    2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.
In Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis, represented by Jean-
NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseur and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at


title: Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-438/98)

text:
C 20/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
     judgment of the Court of Justice delivered in the                 Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
     context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (2)               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     rejecting grounds of alleged invalidity does not                                             Luxembourg
     constitute in the strict sense a declaration that the                                     (Case C-438/98)
     Community measure is valid Ð that is, compatible
     with the EC Treaty Ð but rather, where there is no                                         (1999/C 20/46)
     declaration of invalidity, merely an indication by the
     Court that its examination has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity' of the measure,            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     from which it follows that there is nothing to prevent            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     it from being declared invalid in a future judgment on            Communities on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of
     other grounds.                                                    the European Communities, represented by Antonio
                                                                       Aresu, of its Legal Service, and Nicola Yerrell, a national
                                                                       civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right              Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
     to obtain effective legal protection owing to the failure         Kirchberg.
     by the Court of First Instance sufficiently to take into
     consideration, and in any event sufficiently to                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
     examine, each and every one of the appellant's claims             that the Court should:
     in the light of the new information presented to it
     after the written stage; manifest distortion of such
     evidence: in its Decisions 97/513/EC (3), 97/515/EC (4)           (a) declare that, by failing to adopt and/or to
     and 97/516/EC (5), the Commission considered that an                    communicate to the Commission the laws,
     alternative measure to protect the interests of goods in                regulations and administrative measures necessary in
     transit upon the entry into force of a ban on imports                   order to comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of
     requiring such goods to undergo special analyses did                    20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC
     not involve any risk to public health.                                  on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women in occupational social
                                                                             security schemes (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements: at the                        Treaty; and
     sitting of the full Court of 11 January 1996, the case
     was assigned to a Chamber of five judges. The order
                                                                       (b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     of 2 May 1996 granting leave for the plea of
                                                                             costs.
     inadmissibility brought by the Commission to be
     considered at the same time as the substance of the
     case was adopted by the Second Chamber, Extended                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Composition. The appellant expressed surprise at the              Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the
     application for the case to be assigned to a Chamber              directive expired on 1 July 1997.
     composed of three judges, but did not object. The
     appellant considers that the Second Chamber,
                                                                       (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
     composed of three judges, is not competent to adopt
                                                                       (2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.
     the order appealed against, by which the applications
     for annulment and compensation were dismissed and
     the proceedings thus deemed closed.
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 24.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 1997, in Case
    C-183/95 Affish [1997] ECR I-4315.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-278/97 (1)
(3) Commission Decision 97/513/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning                                    (1999/C 20/47)
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery
    products originating in Bangladesh (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,
    p. 46).
(4) Commission Decision 97/515/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
    products originating in India (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997, p. 52).         from the register of Case C-278/97 (Reference for a
(5) Commission Decision 97/516/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Wrangler Germany GmbH v. Metro Selbstbedienungs-
    products originating in Madagascar (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,            Groûhandel GmbH.
    p. 53).
                                                                       (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 May 2011 in Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 — Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies — Notion of undertaking — Selectivity — Existing aid and new aid — Distortion of competition and effect on trade — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               6.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 May 2011
   in Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10
   Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies — Notion of undertaking — Selectivity — Existing aid and new aid — Distortion of competition and effect on trade — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 294/07
   In Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10, Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave judgment on 10 May 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications.

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-63/11: Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Tribunale di Rovereto (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against John Austine

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Tribunale di Rovereto (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against John Austine
   (Case C-63/11) (1)

   2011/C 252/67
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-230/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht Mehmet Sedef v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Right to the extension of a residence permit — Conditions — Turkish national who was employed in the maritime shipping industry of a Member State for 15 years — Same employer for more than one year without interruption, but not up to the end of a period of three years — Periods of employment interrupted 17 times on account of the nature of the occupation)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-230/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht Mehmet Sedef v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right to the extension of a residence permit - Conditions - Turkish national who was employed in the maritime shipping industry of a Member State for 15 years - Same employer for more than one year without interruption, but not up to the end of a period of three years - Periods of employment interrupted 17 times on account of the nature of the occupation)
   (2006/C 60/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-230/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 18 March 2003, received at the Court on 26 May 2003, in the proceedings between Mehmet Sedef and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, in the presence of Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulman, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it ruled:
   Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council created by the agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               enjoyment of the rights conferred on a Turkish worker by the third indent of paragraph 1 of that article presupposes in principle that the person concerned has already fulfilled the conditions set out in the second indent of that paragraph;

               —

               a Turkish worker who does not yet enjoy the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under that third indent must be in legal employment without interruption in the host Member State unless he can rely on a legitimate reason of the type laid down in Article 6(2) to justify his temporary absence from the labour force;

               —

               Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 covers interruptions in periods of legal employment, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, and the relevant national authorities cannot, in this case, dispute the right of the Turkish worker concerned to reside in the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case C-326/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2012 — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2012 — Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd
   (Case C-326/12)
   2012/C 303/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rita van Caster, Patrick van Caster

      Defendant: Finanzamt Essen-Süd

      Question referred

   Does the flat-rate taxation of income from so-called ‘intransparent’ (domestic and) foreign investment funds under Paragraph 6 of the Law on Investment Tax (Investmentsteuergesetz) infringe European Community law (Article 56 EC) because it amounts to a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 58(3)) EC)?


title: Case C-164/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes (France) lodged on 27 March 2007 — James Wood v Fonds de Garantie

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes (France) lodged on 27 March 2007 — James Wood v Fonds de Garantie
   (Case C-164/07)
   (2007/C 129/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: James Wood

      Defendant: Fonds de Garantie
   Question referred
   In the light of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, set out in Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome, are the provisions of Article 706-3 of the French Code de Procédure Pénale compatible or not with Community law in that a citizen of the European Community, residing in France, the father of a child having French nationality who died outside [French] territory, does not have a right to compensation paid by the Fonds de Garantie on the sole ground of his nationality?


title: Case C-326/08: Action brought on 16 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/38

         Action brought on 16 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-326/08)
   (2008/C 223/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC (1), or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, in particular under Article 19 of that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the Directive expired on 12 June 2007.

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’); OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2002 in Case T-35/99: Keller SpA and Keller Meccanica SpA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Undertakings active in the field of producing railway rolling stock — Undertakings in special administration — Aid for the regions of Sicily and Sardinia — Subsidised loans — Pre-existing or new aid — Scope of the decisions approving the schemes in question — Aid for the rescue or restructuring of undertakings in difficulties Commission guidelines — Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now Article 87 EC) — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
1.6.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/15
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 6 December 2001                                                           of 30 January 2002
in Case T-44/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                          in Case T-35/99: Keller SpA and Keller Meccanica SpA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Association arrangements for overseas countries and terri-
tories — Sugar imports — Refusal of import licence —                        (State aid — Undertakings active in the field of producing
Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Decision 97/                    railway rolling stock — Undertakings in special adminis-
803/EC — Irreversible nature of the experience acquired —                   tration — Aid for the regions of Sicily and Sardinia —
Principle of proportionality — Legal certainty — Regulation                 Subsidised loans — Pre-existing or new aid — Scope of the
                          (EC) No 2553/97)                                  decisions approving the schemes in question — Aid for
                                                                            the rescue or restructuring of undertakings in difficulties
                                                                            Commission guidelines — Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now
                           (2002/C 131/27)                                           Article 87 EC) — Obligation to state reasons)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-44/98: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established in
Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper
and T. van Rijn), supported by Council of the European Union                In Case T-35/99 Keller SpA, established at Palermo (Italy)
(Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin), Kingdom of Spain (Agents:               and Keller Meccanica SpA, established at Villacidro (Italy),
M. López-Monis Gallego and R. Silva de Lapuerta), French                   represented by D. Corapi, V. Cappucelli and M. Merola,
Republic (Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger), and United Kingdom of                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill) —                    by Italian Republic (Agents: V. Leanza and O. Fiumara), against
application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
23 December 1997 (VI/51329), addressed to the Hoofdpro-                     G. Rozet and A. Aresu, subsequently G. Rozet and V. Di Bucci):
ductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten, rejecting an application                 — application for annulment of Commission decision 1999/
for an import licence for 3 010 tonnes of sugar, submitted                  195/EC of 1 July 1998 on aid granted and to be granted by
pursuant to Commission Regulation No 2553/97 of                             Italy to Keller SpA and Keller Meccanica SpA (OJ 1999 L 63,
17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for                   p. 55) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and                   Extended Composition), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President,
1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products (OJ                     and K. Lenaerts, M. Jaeger, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges;
1997 L 349, p. 26), — the Court of First Instance (Third                    H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002
Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and                  in which it:
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application.
(1) Dismisses the action;
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
(2) Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and in addition to                 severally, to pay the Commission’s costs.
      pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those
      relating to the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                            3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
(3) Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5. 1999.
(1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case C-244/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/50/EC — Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and of the trans-European conventional rail system — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/26

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-244/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/50/EC - Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and of the trans-European conventional rail system - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 51/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 114)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Bolzano by order of that Court of 9 January 2004 in the case of Koschitzki Ursel against Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

text:
3.4.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko                    Italian pro rata pension must be the unaugmented notional
Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-                 pension (non-supplemented theoretical amount) where the
ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against                       pensioner’s income exceeds the limits laid down by Italian law
                       Hellenic Republic                                for entitlement to the supplement to bring the pension up to
                                                                        the statutory minimum amount?
                         (Case C-25/04)
                                                                        (1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416.
                         (2004/C 85/23)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance) of 30 Septem-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 26 January 2004,
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE
                                                                        (Finland) by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the
against Hellenic Republic on the following questions:
                                                                        case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä
                                                                                (Public Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry
The questions in this case are identical to those in Case C-23/
04.                                                                                (Case C-40/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/25)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
Bolzano by order of that Court of 9 January 2004 in the                 (Finland) (Supreme Court) of 30 January 2004, received at the
case of Koschitzki Ursel against Istituto Nazionale della               Court Registry on 3 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
                  Previdenza Sociale (INPS)                             the case of Syuichi Yonemoto against Virallinen syyttäjä (Public
                                                                        Prosecutor) and Raine Pentti Pöyry on the following questions:
                         (Case C-30/04)
                                                                        (1) What sort of limits does Community law, having regard
                                                                              in particular to Council Directive 98/37/EC (1) and
                         (2004/C 85/24)                                       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, lay down for the obligations
                                                                              which may be imposed in national law on the importer
                                                                              (or other distributor) of a machine bearing the CE
                                                                              marking in relation to the characteristics of the machine
                                                                              which concern safety
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bolzano
of 9 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 January               —     before the onward sale of the machine and
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koschitzki Ursel
against Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) on                 —     afterwards?
the following question:
                                                                        (2) Clarification is hoped for in particular as to:
In the light of Article 42 of the EC Treaty (as amended by the
Treaties of Amsterdam and of Nice), which requires the                        (a)   the extent to which and the conditions under which
adoption of appropriate measures in the field of social security                    the obligations of action or supervision in relation
for the implementation of the free movement of workers, can                         to the safety of the machine imposed on the
Article 46(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted                        importer (or other distributor) of a machine bearing
as meaning that the basis of calculation of the Italian pro rata                    the CE marking may be regarded as permitted from
pension must always be the notional pension, supplemented                           the point of view of Community law;
to bring it up to the statutory minimum pension, even if the
income limits laid down by Italian law for bringing the pension               (b) whether and in what way the assessment in relation
up to the statutory minimum have been exceeded (Article 6 of                        to Community law of the obligations imposed on
Law No 638/83, amended by Article 4 of Legislative Decree                           the importer (or other distributor) depends on what
No 503/92), or, on the other hand, must Article 46(2)(b) be                         sort of defects relating to the safety of the machine
interpreted as meaning that the basis of calculation of the                         are concerned;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of 1 March 1996 in the case of Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case C-65/96)

text:
No C 133/16         | EN j                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
    completion — in official publications of the Member                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    State ?                                                              Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of
                                                                         1 March 1996 in the case of Vera Jacquet v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                                ( Case C-65 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/34 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                              European Communities by an order of the Fifth Chamber of
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of                      the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Higher Labour Court,
26 January 1996 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  Hamm) of 1 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
                          v. Kari Uecker                                 Registry on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                         ( Case C-64/96 )                                case of Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the
                           ( 96/C 133/33 )                               following questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . May the spouse — not being a national of a Member
European Communities by an order of the Fifth Chamber of                     State — of a national of that Member State in which the
the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm ( Higher Labour Court,                         spouses live and in which the spouse who is a national is
Hamm ) of 26 January 1996 , which was received at the                        employed also rely on the right under Article 11 of
Court Registry on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 0 of 15 October 1968
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v . Kari Uecker on the                  on freedom of movement for workers within the
following questions :                                                        Community ?
1 . May the spouse — not being a national of a Member
    State — of a national of that Member State in which the
    spouses live and in which the spouse who is a national is            2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
    employed also rely on the right under Article 11 of
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( x ) of 15 October 1968                   Does that right of the spouse who is not a national of a
    on freedom of movement for workers within the                            Member State to 'take up any activity as an employed
    Community ?                                                              person' throughout the territory of the Member State
                                                                             concerned include the right, with respect to the
2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative :                           conditions of employment and work, in particular with
                                                                             respect to the conditions for an effective temporal
    Does that right of the spouse who is not a national of a                 limitation of an employment relationship, to be treated
    Member State to 'take up any activity as an employed                     by an employer in the Member State concerned in the
    person' throughout the territory of the Member State                     same way as that employer would have to treat the
    concerned include the right, with respect to the                         spouse who is a national of the Member State ?
    conditions of employment and work, in particular with
    respect to the conditions for an effective temporal
    limitation of an employment relationship, to be treated
                                                                         3 . If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative:
    by an employer in the Member State concerned in the
    same way as that employer would have to treat the
    spouse who is a national of the Member State ?                           Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation ( EEC ) No
                                                                              1612/68 in conjunction with Article 48 (2 ) of the EC
3 . If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative :                      Treaty confer on a worker in a Member State of which
                                                                             he is a national the right to the same treatment as is due
    Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation (EEC )                       to workers who are nationals of another Member State ,
    No 1612/68 in conjunction with Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC                and is a national provision which has been held by the
    Treaty confer on a worker in a Member State of which                     Court of Justice to be inapplicable against the latter
    he is a national the right to the same treatment as is due               persons therefore also inapplicable against the relevant
    to workers who are nationals of another Member State,                    Member State's own nationals and their spouses who
    and is a national provision which has been held by the                   are not nationals of a Member State ?
    Court of Justice to be inapplicable against the latter
    persons therefore also inapplicable against the relevant
    Member State's own nationals and their spouses who
    are not nationals of a Member State ?                                0 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475 .
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 .


title: Case C-458/13: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler v Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc.

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler v Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc.
   (Case C-458/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/33
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-433/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Allen and Others against the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2010 in case Allen and Others v Commission, F-103/09

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/41

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Allen and Others against the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2010 in case Allen and Others v Commission, F-103/09
   (Case T-433/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: John Allen (Horspath, United Kingdom) and Others (represented by: K. Lasok, QC and B. Lask, Barrister)

      Other party to the appeal proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Allow the appeal;

               —

               Quash the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber), dated 13 July 2010 in case F-103/09;

               —

               Dismiss the first and second plea of admissibility raised by the defendant; and

               —

               Order the costs of this appeal to be paid by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellants seek to have set aside the Order to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (EUCST) of 13 July 2010, delivered in case F-103/09 Allen and Others v Commission, by which the EUCST dismissed as inadmissible the action by which the appellants have sought damages and the annulment of a decision refusing to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by each applicant as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking.
   In support of their appeal, the appellants submit that by concluding that an obligation to act within a reasonable period applied in the present context and, even if it did, by its approach to the duration and start point of that period, the EUCST acted contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice and to fundamental principles of European Union law.


title: Case T-9/03: Action brought on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna against Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.3.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/39
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision notified by             Pleas in law and main arguments
      Note 41280 of the Vice-President of the Commission of
      the European Communities, Mr Neil Kinnock, dated
      25 September 2002, not to include the applicant’s name               The applicant companies in the present case object to the
      in the list of most deserving officials and not to promote           extension by the contested act of the exemption arrangement
      him to grade B1 in the promotion exercise for 2001                   from Article 90 of the Treaty in favour of the French overseas
      (decision in reply to the applicant’s Claim No R 220/                departments.
      02, brought for the annulment of the abovementioned
      decision of 21 December 2001);
                                                                           In support of their arguments, they submit that there is
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay such costs as the Court may assess.                              infringement of Article 299(2) of the Treaty in so far as the
                                                                           Council adopted the contested measure in breach of the
                                                                           conditions laid down therein. The preparatory acts leading up
                                                                           to the contested decision, particularly the report of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Commission to the Council dated 24 November 1999, and
                                                                           points 3 and 5 of the statement of the grounds for the decision
                                                                           proposal by the Commission to the Council of 23 August
In support of his action, the applicant alleges, first, an                 2002 (COM 2002 473 FINAL) show that the prerequisite
infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and of              conditions for validly authorising an extension of the special
the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant further                 tax arrangements in favour of the overseas departments have
alleges an infringement of the principle of respect for the rights         not yet been satisfied.
of the defence, an infringement of the principle prohibiting
arbitrary proceedings and of the obligation to state reasons, an
infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            As regards Decision 89/688 of 22 December 1989, the effects
the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ and, lastly, infringe-           of which were extended by the contested decision, the
ment of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.            applicants question its legality on the basis of Article 241 of
                                                                           the Treaty, on the grounds that the Council was not competent
                                                                           to authorise it in 1989. They submit that that decision
                                                                           constituted a derogation from Article 95 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now Article 90) and thus could no longer be taken by the
                                                                           Council after expiry of the two-year time period provided for
                                                                           in 1957, in the second subparagraph of Article 227(2) of the
Action brought on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils                        EC Treaty.
EURL and Others against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-5/03)
                         (2003/C 55/94)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Action brought on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI —
                                                                           Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
                                                                           CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 January 2003 by Ayassami & Fils EURL,                                              (Case T-9/03)
established in Saint-François (Guadeloupe), and 23 other
undertakings, represented by John Sylvanus Dagnon, avocat.                                         (2003/C 55/95)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     Annul Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December
      2002 amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December
      1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas
      departments Commission Regulation (OJ 2002 L 337,                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      p. 83).                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 10 January 2003 by COLDIRETTI
—     Declare that Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 Decem-                — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna e
      ber 1989 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas             CIA — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna,
      departments (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 46) is inapplicable.                  represented by Giovanni Dore and Fabio Ciulli, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/40                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              —     infringement of the rules which govern procedure relating
                                                                               to State aid, inasmuch as the decision was adopted after
                                                                               the expiry of the two-month period from the date on
—     pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, declare unlawful                  which the appropriate notification was received.
      Commission Decision No 02/229/EC of 13 November
      2001, published in the Official Journal on 20 March
                                                                         —     failure to assess the aid, when examining its compatibility,
      2002 and, accordingly, annul it in its entirety or in so far
      as necessary;                                                            in the light of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1)
                                                                               of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from
                                                                               the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
—     in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate                   (EAGGF) amending and repealing certain Regulations and
      the Sardinian undertakings for the damage suffered                       the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture
      which is quantified as amounting to EUR 1 300 000                        sector (2000/C28/02) ( 2).
      (corresponding to the regional contribution which was
      not received), together with interest and any readjustment,        —     failure to apply the Guidelines on National Regional
      to be distributed in proportion to the costs incurred;                   Aid (3) and the Community guidelines on State aid for
                                                                               small and medium-sized enterprises ( 4).
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Finally, the applicants allege failure to state reasons and
                                                                         misapplication to the present case of the derogation under
                                                                         Article 87(3) of the Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2.
                                                                         (3 ) OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9.
The applicants, the two largest prestigious associations in the          (4 ) OJ 1992 C 213, p. 2.
agriculture sector, contest the decision of the defendant which
found contrary to the common market the aid scheme laid
down in Article 21 of Region of Sardinia Law No 21/2000
which provides for the reduction of production costs linked to
the use of fuels other than methane. The object of that scheme
is to compensate for the extremely high cost of heating fuel
available in Sardinia (diesel). According to the applicants,
the contested decision has prevented Sardinian greenhouse                Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi
growers from being placed on an equal footing with those in              against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
other parts of Italy and in the rest of Europe, which would                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
have made it possible to have free competition in the market.
                                                                                (Case T-10/03)
In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:
                                                                                (2003/C 55/96)
—     infringement of Article 158 of the Treaty and of Declar-
      ation No 30 on Island Regions, annexed to the final act                                (Language of the case: French)
      of the Amsterdam Treaty.
—     infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5, 12 and 34 of the Treaty          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      and failure to apply the principles of equality and                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      proportionality. The applicants point out in that respect          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      that the contested decision has rejected an aid scheme             13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi, resident in Marseille
      intended to eliminate serious discrimination between               (France), represented by Katia Manhaeve, Avocat, with an
      Sardinian greenhouse growers and other Italian and                 address for service in Luxembourg. Additional party before the
      European greenhouse growers rather than to distort                 Office: Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere, S.A. Flabesa.
      competition.
—     infringement of Article 32 in conjunction with Articles 33         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      to 37 of the Treaty. The applicants claim that the
      Commission was not entitled to adopt that decision                 —     set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      inasmuch as it failed to take the precautions which must                 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
      be taken in a sector such as agriculture in which, as a                  16 October 2002 in Case R 542/2001-4;
      rule, the competition rules are applied only to the extent
      determined by the Council.                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.