title: Case C-546/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Annex XII to the Act of Accession — List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Poland — Chapter 2, paragraph 13 — Possibility of derogation by the Federal Republic of Germany from the first paragraph of Article 49 EC — Standstill clause — Agreement of 31 January 1990 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on the posting of workers from Polish undertakings to carry out works contracts — Exclusion of the possibility for undertakings established in other Member States to conclude works contracts with Polish undertakings for work to be carried out in Germany — Extension of the restrictions existing at the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession relating to the access of Polish workers to the German labour market)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-546/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - Annex XII to the Act of Accession - List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Poland - Chapter 2, paragraph 13 - Possibility of derogation by the Federal Republic of Germany from the first paragraph of Article 49 EC - ‘Standstill’ clause - Agreement of 31 January 1990 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on the posting of workers from Polish undertakings to carry out works contracts - Exclusion of the possibility for undertakings established in other Member States to conclude works contracts with Polish undertakings for work to be carried out in Germany - Extension of the restrictions existing at the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession relating to the access of Polish workers to the German labour market)
   2010/C 63/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC and Annex XII (List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Poland), Chapter 2 (Freedom of Movement of Persons), Paragraph 13 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 875) — Interpretation and application by the national administrative authorities of the Agreement of 31 January 1990 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on the posting of workers from Polish undertakings to carry out works contracts — Exclusion of the possibility for undertakings established in other Member States to conclude works contracts with Polish undertakings concerning work to be done in Germany — Extension of the restrictions which existed at the date the Act of Accession was signed relating to the access of Polish workers on fixed term contracts (‘Werkvertragsarbeitnehmer’) to the national labour market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by interpreting, in its administrative practice, the term ‘undertaking from the other side’ in Paragraph 1(1) of the Agreement of 31 January 1990 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on the posting of workers from Polish undertakings to carry out works contracts, as amended on 1 March and 30 April 1993, as meaning ‘a German undertaking’, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own respective costs;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-66/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/14

         Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-66/07)
   (2007/C 69/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 136, p. 34.


title: Case C-387/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted before the export licence was issued — Export carried out during the period of validity of the export licence — Rectification of irregularities)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV v Productschap Vee en Vlees
   (Case C-387/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 - Export refunds - Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 - System of export licences - Export declaration submitted before the export licence was issued - Export carried out during the period of validity of the export licence - Rectification of irregularities))
   (2014/C 462/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VAEX Varkens- en Veehandel BV

      Defendant: Productschap Vee en Vlees

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products and Commission Regulation (EC) No 382/2008 of 21 April 2008 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector must be interpreted as precluding, as a rule, the payment of an export refund and the release of the security lodged in that connection when the exporter concerned did not have a valid export licence at the date the export declaration was accepted, even though the actual export of the goods concerned took place during the period of validity of the export licence issued to it.

               2.

               The provisions of Regulation No 612/2009 and of Regulations Nos 376/2008 and 382/2008, read in conjunction with Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding, as a rule, post-clearance regularisation of the export declaration, enabling the exported quantity to be entered on the export licence, the export refund to be paid on the basis of that licence and, as the case may be, the security lodged to be released.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-325/02: Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
26.10.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 261/9
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by restricting itself to transposing part of
                                                                              Article 1 of and Annexes IV and V of Council Directive
                                                                              98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 on the contained use of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               genetically modified micro-organisms ( 1) or, in any event,
                                                                              by failing to communicate other implementing measures
The Commission submits that:                                                  to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
                                                                              directive;
—     Ireland has infringed Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92
      by failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
      proper utilisation of the quota allocated to it. The rules        —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      should have been such as to enable Ireland to ensure that
      overfishing did not take place and that quotas were
      always respected;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Ireland did not ensure compliance with Community rules
      on control, contrary to Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93;
                                                                        Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
—     Ireland did not respect its obligation under Article 21 of        directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      Regulation 2847/93 to prohibit fishery provisionally              each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
      when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have been            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
      exhausted;                                                        their transposition.
—     by failing to institute criminal or administrative proceed-
      ings against the skipper or any other party responsible           The Commission finds that, despite the prescribed time-limit
      for preventing overfishing Ireland has not complied in            having expired, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has carried
      full with the obligations imposed by Article 31 of                out only a partial transposition of the directive referred to in
      Regulation 2847/93.                                               the Commission’s pleadings, restricted to part of Article 1
                                                                        thereof and Annexes IV and V thereto.
( 1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13.
Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Commission                       Action brought on 18 September 2002 by the Com-
of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                      mission of the European Communities against the
                           Luxembourg                                                           Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-325/02)                                                         (Case C-328/02)
                         (2002/C 261/14)                                                         (2002/C 261/15)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Sep-
ties on 16 September 2002 by the Commission of the                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and                      ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in
F. Simonetti, acting as Agents.                                         its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2000 in Joined Cases C-441/98 and C-442/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio, Thessaloniki): Kapniki Mikhailidis AE v Idrima Kinonikon Asphaliseon (IKA) (Charges having equivalent effect — Tobacco exports — Levy imposed for the benefit of a social fund)

text:
C 335/8                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          to other persons and to prevent him from adducing evidence in
                                                                                order to refute any allegation that the charges have been passed
                                                                                on.
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 21 September 2000                                 (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
in Joined Cases C-441/98 and C-442/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio, Thessa-
loniki): Kapniki Mikhailidis AE v Idrima Kinonikon
                         Asphaliseon (IKA) (1)
(Charges having equivalent effect — Tobacco exports —
         Levy imposed for the benefit of a social fund)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (2000/C 335/14)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)                                                of 21 September 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Case C-462/98 P: Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de
                     in the European Court Reports)                         Ensino Particular Ld.a Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
In Joined Cases C-441/98 and C-442/98: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                   (Appeal — European Social Fund — Training programmes
EC) from the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of                  — Reduction of financial assistance — Rights of defence —
First Instance), Thessaloniki, Greece, for a preliminary ruling                                       Right to be heard)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Kapniki
Mikhailidis AE and Idrima Kinonikon Asphaliseon (IKA) — on                                             (2000/C 335/15)
the interpretation of Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 23 EC and 25 EC) and Article 16 of
the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) in respect
of charges having equivalent effect to customs duties and the                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
conditions in which a charge collected in breach of Community
law may be refunded — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                                    in the European Court Reports)
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 2000, in
which it has ruled:                                                         In Case C-462/98 P: Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino
                                                                            Particular Ld.a established in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by
1.    An ad valorem charge on exported tobacco products, which is           C. Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for
      not levied either on the same tobacco products when they are          service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route
      sold on the domestic market or on those imported from another         d’Esch — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
      Member State, cannot escape, by reason of its social objective,       Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in
      classification as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs      Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96 Mediocurso v Com-
      duty on exports that is incompatible with Articles 9 and 12 of        mission [1998] ECR II-3477, seeking to have that judgment
      the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 23 EC and 25            set aside, the other party to be proceedings being: Commission
      EC) and Article 16 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of        of the European Communities, (Agent: M.T. Figueira and
      Amsterdam), unless the allegedly comparable charge levied on          K. Simonsson) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      domestic products is applied at the same rate, at the same            D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann,
      marketing stage and on the basis of a chargeable event which is       H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
      identical to that giving rise to a charge on exports of the kind      J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has
      introduced by Greek Law No 2348/1953.                                 given a judgment on 21 September 2000, in which it:
2.    Although Community law does not preclude a Member State               1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      from refusing repayment of charges levied in breach of its                  European Communities of 15 September 1998 in Joined Cases
      provisions where it is established that repayment would entail              T-180/96 and T-181/96 Mediocurso v Commission with the
      unjust enrichment, it does preclude any presumption or rule of              exception of paragraph 2 of the operative part which partially
      evidence intended to shift to the trader concerned the burden of            upheld the action by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino
      proving that the charges unduly paid have not been passed on                Particular Ld.a in Case T-180/96;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2001 in Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou v Council of the European Union (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
11.8.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/17
(Germany), represented by R. Collin and M.-C. Mitchell,                   1.    Dismisses the action;
Avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gippini                 2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Fournier) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/267/EC of 7 April 1999 relating to a proceed-
ing pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI
code of conduct) (OJ 1999 L 106, p. 14) — the Court of                    (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 March 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/267/EC of
      7 April 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
      of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct) in so far as
      it concerns Article 2(b)(3) and Article 5(c) of the Code of
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Conduct of the Institute of Professional Representatives before
      the European Patent Office;
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those         in Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v
      incurred in the interlocutory procedure.                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Term EASYBANK — Absolute
                                                                          grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/33)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 (Language of the case: German)
                           of 3 May 2001                                  In Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, estab-
                                                                          lished in Vienna (Austria), represented by G. Kucsko, Rechtsan-
in Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou v Council of the                       walt, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office
                        European Union (1)                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, J.F. Crespo
                                                                          Carrillo and S. Laitinen) — application for annulment of the
(Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance —                      decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)                Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs) of 31 January 2000 (Case R 316/1999-3), refusing
                          (2001/C 227/32)                                 registration of the term EASYBANK as a Community trade
                                                                          mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                          composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                    (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:
In Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou, an official of the Council            1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by                     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                 Designs) of 31 January 2000 (Case R 316/1999-3);
v Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and
D. Zahariou) — application, first, for annulment of the                   2.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
Council’s decision of 5 July 1999 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, second, for payment
of that allowance together with default interest — the Court              (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 3 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-572/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 November 2013 — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 November 2013 — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL
   (Case C-572/13)
   2014/C 24/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL

      Defendant: Reprobel SCRL

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘fair compensation’ contained in Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 (1) be interpreted differently depending on whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial? If the answer is in the affirmative, on what criteria must that difference of interpretation be based?

               2.

               Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to fix the fair compensation payable to rightholders in the form of:

                           1.

                           a lump-sum remunerative payment made by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, the amount of which is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the copier is capable of producing a number of copies per minute, without being otherwise linked to any harm suffered by rightholders;
                           and,

                           2.

                           a proportional remunerative payment, determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which varies depending on whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the collection of that remuneration, which is payable by natural or legal persons making copies of works or, as the case may be, in lieu of those persons, by those who, for consideration or free of charge, make a reproduction device available to others.

                     If the reply to this question is in the negative, what are the relevant and consistent criteria that the Member States must apply in order to ensure that, in accordance with European Union law, the compensation may be regarded as fair and that a fair balance is maintained between the persons concerned?

               3.

               Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to allocate half of the fair compensation due to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, the publishers being under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived?

               4.

               Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to introduce an undifferentiated system for recovering the fair compensation due to rightholders in the form of a lump-sum and an amount for each copy made, which, implicitly but indisputably, covers in part the copying of sheet music and counterfeit reproductions?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case T-303/13: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2014 — Miettinen v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service — Refusal of access — Disclosure after the action was brought — Action becoming devoid of purpose — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/22

      Order of the General Court of 14 January 2014 — Miettinen v Council
      (Case T-303/13) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service - Refusal of access - Disclosure after the action was brought - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
      (2014/C 71/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pellinghelli and É. Sitbon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 25 March 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to the full text of the opinion of the Council’s Legal Service, reference 15309/12.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

                  3.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland.

         (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case C-115/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 11 March 2014  — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 11 March 2014 — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau
   (Case C-115/14)
   2014/C 175/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Stadt Landau

      Parties to the proceedings: PostCon Deutschland GmbH, Deutsche Post AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 56(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision which makes it mandatory for a contracting authority to award contracts only to undertakings which undertake and whose subcontractors undertake in writing, at the time of submitting the tender, to pay their employees who perform the contract a minimum wage fixed by the State for public contracts only but not for private ones, where there is neither a general statutory minimum wage nor a universally binding collective agreement that binds potential contractors and possible subcontractors?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative:
               Is European Union law in the area of public procurement, in particular Article 26 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as the third sentence of Paragraph 3(1) of the [Rhineland-Palatinate Land Law on guaranteeing compliance with collective agreements and minimum wages in public contract awards (LTTG)] which provides for the mandatory exclusion of a tender if an economic operator does not, already when submitting the tender, undertake in a separate declaration to do something which he would be contractually obliged to do if awarded the contract even without making that declaration?

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 18, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-416/05: Action brought on  24 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/17

         Action brought on 24 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-416/05)
   (2006/C 10/33)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C.F. Durand and F.Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 2 October 2003 in Case C-89/03 concerning the failure to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC (1) into Luxembourg law, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 9 000 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-89/03 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-89/03 is complied with;

               3.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In its judgment of 2 October in Case C-89/03 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Court declared that: 'By failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.'
   By letter of 7 November 2003, the Commission drew the attention of the Luxembourg authorities to the judgment of 2 October 2003 and requested that the measures adopted in order to comply with this judgment be communicated to it.
   The Luxembourg authorities indicated, in reply, that a draft Grand Ducal regulation could be finalised at the latest by November 2004.
   On 14 December 2004, the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion calling on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to take the measures necessary to comply with it within a period of two months.
   In a letter of 19 September 2005, the Luxembourg authorities referred to the fact that the Conseil d'État (Council of State), in an opinion of 12 October 2004, considered that the scope of the draft regulation was, in accordance with the Constitution, a matter for loi (legislative provision).
   According to the information available to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has still not transposed the directive at issue.
   In accordance with the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 228(2) EC, the Commission is to specify in its application the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
   In this instance, the Commission takes the view that a penalty payment of EUR 9 000 a day fits the seriousness and duration of the infringement and takes into consideration the need to give this penalty payment the required deterrent effect.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20).


title: Case T-47/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2007 — Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Competence of the Community — Action for annulment — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for damages)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2007 — Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-47/03) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Competence of the Community - Action for annulment - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 199/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Jose Maria Sison (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz, D. Gurses and T. Olsson, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Negotiating Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (Utrecht); Luis G. Jalandoni (Utrecht); Fidel V. Agcaoili (Utrecht); Maria Consuelo K. Ledesma (Utrecht) (represented by B. Tomlow, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H. Sevenster, acting as Agent) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by R. Caudwell and subsequently by C. Gibbs, acting as Agents, and by S. Moore, Barrister)
   Re:
   Application for, first, partial annulment of Council Decision 2002/974/EC of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 85), and, secondly, compensation for damage.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               2.

               Rejects the application for compensation;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the applicant's costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures, and also the costs of the Negotiating Panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, Luis G. Jalandoni, Fidel V. Agcaoili and Maria Consuelo K. Ledesma;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2003 in Case T-392/02 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of the European Union (Procedure for interim relief — Directive 70/524/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisation for the placing on the market of an additive in feedingstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
C 171/28                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                              INSTANCE                                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignat-
                                                                            aro-Nolin and O. Beynets) — application for suspension of the
                          of 11 April 2003                                  operation of the decision of the Commission of 30 October
                                                                            2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and
                                                                            Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video
in Case T-392/02 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council
                      of the European Union                                 Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/
                                                                            36.321 Omega — Nintendo) — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 27 March 2003, the operative
(Procedure for interim relief — Directive 70/524/EEC —                      part of which is as follows:
Withdrawal of authorisation for the placing on the market
of an additive in feedingstuffs — Regulation (EC) No 1756/
2002 — Application for suspension of operation — Admissi-                   1.    The application is dismissed.
bility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of
                               interests)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                          (2003/C 171/47)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-392/01 R: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Weesp (Netherlands) represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against the Council of the European Union (Agents:                                             of 28 April 2003
M. Balta and M. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for the
suspension of operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/                 in Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe against Office
2002 of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 70/                    for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards                                          and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive and amending
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265,
p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an                (Community trade mark — Annulment — Time limits —
order on 11 April 2003, the operative part of which is as                                        Manifest Inadmissibility)
follows:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/49)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                            In Case T-15/03: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, residing in Bilbao
                                                                            (Spain), against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                            proceedings being: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA,
                              INSTANCE                                      established in Madrid, — appeal against the decision of the
                                                                            Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                         of 27 March 2003                                   the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October
                                                                            2002 in Case R-918/2001-2 relating to the opposition pro-
in Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl v Commission of the                       ceedings between José Luis Zuazaga Meabe and Banco Bilbao
                     European Communities                                   Vizcaya Argentaria SA — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                            Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, and J. Pirrung
(Application for interim relief — Competition — Payment                     and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar; has made an order
of fines — Bank guarantee — Urgency — Exceptional                           on 28 April 2003 by which it:
           circumstances — Balancing of interests)
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                          (2003/C 171/48)
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
In Case T-398/02 R: Linea GIG Srl, having its registered office
in Florence (Italy), represented by L. D’Amario and B. Calzia,


title: Case T-316/07: Action brought on 20 August 2007 — Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/26

         Action brought on 20 August 2007 — Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel)
   (Case T-316/07)
   (2007/C 235/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commercy AG (Weimar, Germany) (represented by: F. Jaschke, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: easyGroup IP Licensing Limited
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration that Community trade mark No 1 866 706 ‘easyHotel’ is invalid

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘easyHotel’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 866 706)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: easyGroup IP Licensing Limited

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Bettina Breitenbücher, Sozietät Kübler

      Trade mark right of the applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The German word mark ‘EASYHOTEL’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (No 30 043 724)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal in Case R 1295/2006-2

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as that provision was interpreted too strictly. On the basis of the identity of the signs there is a likelihood of confusion even though the goods and services are more remotely similar.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-152/05: Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/18

         Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-152/05)
   (2005/C 132/33)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal and K. Gross, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by excluding, in the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the Eigenheimzulagengesetz (Law on allowances for owner-occupied homes), the grant, to persons subject to unlimited taxation, of owner-occupied home allowance in respect of properties situated in other Member States irrespective of whether comparable assistance can be claimed there, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the European Commission's view, the owner-occupied home allowance granted by the German State has discriminatory features. Persons subject to unlimited taxation in Germany who acquire a flat or house for the purpose of habitation in Germany are entitled to owner-occupied home allowance. Persons subject to unlimited taxation in Germany who live outside Germany and want to acquire a property there for the purpose of habitation are, by contrast, not granted owner-occupied home allowance.
   Three groups of people are placed at a disadvantage by the German rules: (i) State employees who are resident abroad; (ii) frontier workers at least 90 % of whose income is subject to German income tax; and (iii) diplomats and European Union officials from Germany.
   The Commission regards this, according to the status of the affected group of persons, as infringing freedom of movement for workers (Article 39 EC), freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC) or freedom of movement under Article 18 EC. All the cases have a sufficient cross-border element to justify the applicability of the relevant Treaty provision.
   The Commission considers that the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-279/93 Schumacker can be transposed to the present instance. Every person who is subject to unlimited taxation in Germany — and thus in principle pays tax on his worldwide income in Germany and in this way participates in the financing of Germany society — must be able to benefit from advantages financed out of taxation in the same way as a person resident in Germany. It is necessary to avoid a situation where the persons concerned are not granted advantages connected with their personal situation either in the State where they reside or in the State where they pursue their occupation.
   In practice it is not very likely that a person subject to unlimited taxation in Germany will subject to unlimited taxation in another State. Account can be taken of that exceptional situation by prohibiting concurrent receipt of the German owner-occupied home allowance and comparable foreign assistance.
   The restriction of owner-occupied home allowance to properties situated in Germany is not justified. The housing situation in Germany can also be improved if, for example, frontier workers acquire residential property not far over the border instead of moving to Germany. The German Government did not explain adequately in the pre-litigation procedure what purpose is ultimately served by limiting the assistance to German territory. Even if it were permissible for a Member State to promote housing construction in its territory alone, the German rules are not in themselves logical. If the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to promote every form of housing construction in Germany, it is not evident why the assistance is restricted to persons subject to unlimited taxation in Germany. Persons subject to limited taxation in Germany can also acquire residential accommodation there and thus promote housing construction.
   Community law does not in any way require that the acquisition of second homes in other Member States be supported financially. It is for the national legislature alone to determine the scope of the assistance. Its freedom of decision is, however, limited by the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EC Treaty.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2001 in Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Refusal to end the ban on British beef and veal)

text:
C 44/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ                  for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
1993 L 30, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    court between Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger and
Iglesias, President, N. Colneric (President of Chambers), C. Gul-            Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the interpretation
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), L. Sevón,                  of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                  protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,                   from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31), and Council
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a                   Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approxi-
judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                         mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987
1.    Where a national measure generally prohibiting exports of              L 42, p. 48) as amended by Council Directive 90/88/EEC of
      waste for disposal is justified by the principles of proximity,        22 February 1990 (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14), the Court (Sixth
      priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with         Chamber), composed of F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
      Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of            C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and
      1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
      of waste within, into and out of the European Community, it is         Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given
      not necessary for that national measure to be subject to a further     a judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      and separate review of its compatibility with Articles 34 and 36
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29 EC and             1.    Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
      30 EC).                                                                      protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
                                                                                from business premises is to be interpreted as applying to a
2.    Article 4(3) of Regulation No 259/93 does not authorise a
                                                                                secured-credit agreement such as that in point in the main
      Member State which has adopted legislation introducing an
                                                                                proceedings, with the result that the right of cancellation
      obligation to offer waste for disposal to an approved body to
                                                                                provided for in Article 5 of that directive is available to a
      provide that, where the waste is not allocated to a treatment
                                                                                consumer who has entered into a contract of that type in one of
      centre for which that body is responsible, its shipment to
                                                                                the cases specified in Article 1.
      treatment installations in other Member States is authorised
      only on condition that the intended disposal satisfy the               2.    Directive 85/577 precludes the national legislature from
      requirements of the environmental protection legislation of that             imposing a time-limit of one year from the conclusion of the
      Member State.                                                                contract within which the right of cancellation provided for in
3.    Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 259/93 preclude a Member                    Article 5 of that directive may be exercised, where the consumer
      State from applying to shipments between Member States of                    has not received the information specified in Article 4.
      waste for disposal, before the implementation of the notification
      procedure laid down in the regulation, its own procedure in            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
      relation to the offer and allocation of the waste.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 13 December 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                   in Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                       of 13 December 2001
in Case C-481/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Refusal
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Georg Heininger and Helga                                    to end the ban on British beef and veal)
   Heininger v Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/04)
(Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Right of
cancellation — Agreement to grant credit secured by charge                                        (Language of the case: French)
                      on immovable property)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 44/03)                                                       in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Agents: D. Booss and G. Berscheid), supported by United
                                                                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agent:
                                                                             J.E. Collins, assisted by D. Anderson QC and M. Hoskins) v
In Case C-481/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                   French Republic (Agents: initially K. Rispal-Bellanger and
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Republic of Germany)                    J.-F. Dobelle, subsequently R. Loosli-Surrans and J.-F. Dobelle,
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 44/3
and then R. Loosli-Surrans and G. de Bergues) — application                     in particular, by refusing to permit the marketing in its territory
for a declaration that, by refusing to adopt the measures                       after 30 December 1999 of products subject to that scheme
necessary in order to comply with:                                              which are correctly marked or labelled, the French Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under those two decisions, in
                                                                                particular their provisions referred to above;
—      Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 concern-               2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
       ing emergency measures to protect against bovine spongi-
       form encephalopathy, amending Decision 94/474/EC                   3.    Orders the French Republic to bear two thirds of the costs and
       and repealing Decision 96/239/EC (OJ 1998 L 113,                         the Commission of the European Communities to bear the other
       p. 32), in the version resulting from Commission Decision                third;
       98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 (OJ 1998 L 328,
       p. 28), in particular with Article 6 and Annex III, and            4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
—      Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999
       setting the date on which dispatch from the United
       Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export
       scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of
       Decision 98/256 (OJ 1999 L 195, p. 42), in particular
       with Article 1,
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in particular, by refusing to permit the marketing in its                                            (Sixth Chamber)
territory of products eligible under that scheme, which are
covered by Article 6 of, and Annex III to, Decision 98/256 as                                    of 13 December 2001
amended by Decision 98/692, after 1 August 1999, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those two
decisions, in particular their provisions referred to above, and          in Case C-79/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 EC and 10 EC — the               from the Tribunal Supremo): Telefónica de España SA v
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,                      Administración General del Estado (1)
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,               (Directive 97/33/EC — Telecommunications — Intercon-
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skou-            nection of networks — Obligations imposed on network
ris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-                                           providers)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
2001, in which it:                                                                                (2002/C 44/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1.     Declares that, by refusing to adopt the measures necessary in      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       order to comply with:                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-79/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
       —     Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 con-             by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in
             cerning emergency measures to protect against bovine         the proceedings pending before that court between Telefónica
             spongiform encephalopathy, amending Decision                 de España SA and Administración General del Estado, third
             94/474/EC and repealing Decision 96/239/EC, in the           party: Retevisión SA, on the interpretation of Articles 4(2) and
             version resulting from Commission Decision 98/692/EC         9(2) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and
             of 25 November 1998, in particular with Article 6 and        of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
             Annex III, and                                               Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service
                                                                          and interoperability through application of the principles of
                                                                          Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32), the
                                                                          Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
       —     Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999              President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-
             setting the date on which dispatch from the United           ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General:
             Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export       F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
             scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of             given a judgement on 13 December 2001, in which it has
             Decision 98/256, in particular with Article 1,               ruled:


title: Case F-76/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Grazyte v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Starting point — Expiry point — Periods of service for an international organisation disregarded — Application by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Grazyte v Commission
   (Case F-76/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Starting point - Expiry point - Periods of service for an international organisation disregarded - Application by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulation)
   2013/C 38/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Diana Grazyte (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Guarino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, then V. Joris, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing the applicant’s claims for expatriation allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms. Grazyte to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 29.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 1997 in Case C-80/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Harnas & Helm CV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën (VAT - Interpretation of Articles 4, 13 and 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Taxable person - Acquisition and holding of bonds)

text:
No C 108/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 4 . 97
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 6 February 1997                                                     of 6 February 1997
in Case C-80/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 in Case C-247/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Harnas & Helm CV v.                      the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v.
                  Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1 )                                       Marktgemeinde Welden ( ] )
(VAT — Interpretation of Articles 4, 13 and 17 of Sixth                  (Sixth VAT Directive — Letting of immovable property —
Directive 77/388/EEC — Taxable person — Acquisition                                               Public authority)
                        and holding of bonds)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/03 )
                              ( 97/C 108/02 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                          (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-80/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                      In Case C-247/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) for a preliminary                   of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                      Finance Court ) ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the
between Harnas & Helm CV and Staatssecretaris van Fi                    proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt
nancien — on the interpretation of Articles 4 (2 ), 13 ( B )             Augsburg-Stadt and Marktgemeinde Welden — on the
( d ) ( 5 ) and 17 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/        interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) and Article 13
388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                       ( B ) and ( C ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                   17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                       Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court             system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President                ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth
of the Chamber ( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris, R J. G.                   Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N.                          Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn
Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                       and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges ; A. La Pergola,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                     Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
6 February 1997, the operative part of which is as                       judgment on 6 Febuary 1997, in which it has ruled :
follows :
                                                                         the fourth subparagraph of Article 4 (5) of the Sixth
Article 4 (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of               Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                        to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is                uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as
to be interpreted as meaning that the mere acquisition of                permitting Member States to consider that the activities
ownership in and the holding of bonds, activities which                  listed in Article 13 of the Directive are carried out by
are not subservient to any other business activity, and the              bodies governed by public law as public authorities, even
receipt of income therefrom are not to be regarded as                    if they are performed in a similar manner to those of a
economic activities conferring on the person concerned the               private trader.
status of a taxable person.
                                                                         (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 October 1996 in Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95: Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Channel Tunnel - Reservation of 50 % of tunnel capacity for two railway companies - Restrictions on competition - Exemption - Access for third parties)

text:
7 . 12 . 96             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 370/ 11
     comply with Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     29 October 1993 ( : ) concerning the list of substances
     referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13 ( 1 ) of             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) and/or by failing to            Case C-356/9 6 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposition expired
     communicate those measures, the Kingdom of Belgium                 on 31 October 1993 .
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                        (') OJ No L 277, 10 . 1 1 . 1993 , p . 33 .
                                                                        ( ~ ) OJ , English Special Edition ( 1967 ), p. 234 .
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                       ( M See Case C-356/96 above .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Netherlands authorities — the Court of First Instance
                       of 22 October 1996
                                                                        (Third Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:
                                                                        C. R Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
in Case T-154/94 :        Comité des Salines de France et               and J. D. Cooke, Judges, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines de l'Est v.                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        22 October 1996 in which it:
         Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
(State aid — General regional aid scheme — Letter from the
Commission concerning aid — Action for annulment —                      1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible ;
                            Inadmissible)
                           ( 96/C 370/25 )                              2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those
                                                                              incurred by Frima B V;
                 (Language of the case: French)                         3 . orders Salt Union Ltd, Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG ,
                                                                              and Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to bear their own
                                                                              costs .
In Case T- 154/94 : Comite des Salines de France, established           (') OJ No C 161 , 11.6 . 1994 .
in Paris, and Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines
de l'Est SA, established in Paris, represented by Dominique
Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, and Peter Verloop, of the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,
supported by Salt Union Ltd, established in Cheshire                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig
Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in                                               of 22 October 1996
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden,                            in Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 : Société Nationale
8 Boulevard Royal, and Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG,                    des Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v.
established in Heilbronn ( Germany ), and Verein Deutsche                          Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
Salzindustrie eV, established in Bonn ( Germany ),
represented by Thomas Jestaedt and Barbel Altes,                        (Competition — Channel Tunnel — Reservation of SO % of
Rechtsanwälte, Dusseldorf, and Walter Klosterfelde and                  tunnel capacity for two railway companies — Restrictions
Karsten Metzlaff, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an                          on competition — Exemption — Access for third parties)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                                 ( 96/C 370/26 )
Philippe Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission
of the European Communities ( Agents : initially Giuliano
Marenco and Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Giuliano Marenco                               (Language of the case: English and French)
and Paul Nemitz ), supported by Frima BV, established in
The Hague ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom Ottervanger
and Gerrit Vriezen , of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address              In Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 : Societe Nationale des
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos                     Chemins de Fer Français, established in Paris, represented
Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde — application for annulment of                  by Barbara Rapp-Jung and Nathalie Flandin, of the Brussels
the decision allegedly contained in a letter addressed by the           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Commission on 7 February 1994 to Comite des Salines de                  Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue d'Eich, and British
France concerning aid granted to Frima BV by the                        Railways Board, established in London , represented by
 ---pagebreak--- No C 370/ 12         [ EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7 . 12 . 96
Thomas Sharpe QC, of the Bar of England and Wales,                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
instructed by Alexandre R. M. Nourry, Solicitor, with an                                     of 5 November 1996
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean
Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, supported by the United Kingdom of            in Joined Cases T-21 /95 and T-186/95 : Marco Mazzocchi
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey Nicoll,        Alemanni v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
Stephanie Ridley, K. P. E. Lasok and Kenneth Parker ) and           (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
by Channel Tunnel Group Ltd, established in London, and             officials serving in a third country — Procedure for
France Manche SA, established in Paris, together                    reimbursement of medical expenses — Application of
constituting Eurotunnel, whose head office is in London,                                             ceilings)
represented by Christine Heron Schwaighofer and Christian
Roth, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                                           ( 96/C 370/27 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
Rue, British Railways Board being supported also by
European Passenger Services Ltd, established in London,                              (Language of the case: French)
represented by Thomas Sharpe QC, of the Bar of England
and Wales, instructed by Alexandre R. M. Nourry, Solicitor,         In Joined Cases T-21 /95 and T-186/95 : Marco Mazzocchi
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers           Alemanni, an official of the Commission of the European
of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against the Commission of             Communities, residing in Libreville ( Gabon ), represented
the European Communities (Agents: Francisco Enrique                 by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Gonzalez Diaz, Carmel O'Reilly and Guy Charrier ) —                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
applications for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/           Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
894/EC of 13 December 1994 relating to a proceeding                 Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) — application for
under Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA         annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing the
Agreement ( IV/32.490 — Eurotunnel ) ( OJ No L 354 ,                applicant full reimbursement of certain dental expenses —
31 . 12 . 1994, p. 66 ) and, in the alternative, for the            the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of:
annulment of the conditions laid down in Article 2 ( A ) of         C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki,
that decision — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,        Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,         has given a judgment on 5 November 1996 , in which it:
and B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke,
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1996 , in              1 . dismisses the action in Case T-21 /95 as inadmissible;
which it ruled as follows :
                                                                    2.    dismisses the action in Case T-l 86/95 as inadmissible in
                                                                          so far as it requests the Court to issue directions or
                                                                          make declarations;
 1 . Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 are joined for the purposes
     of the judgment.
                                                                     3 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
                                                                    4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 2 . Commission Decision 94/894/EC of 13 December 1994
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , and
     Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (IV/                     OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
     32.490 — Eurotunnel) is annulled.
 3 . The Commission shall bear its own costs together with
     those of the applicants, including the costs relating to           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     the applications for interim measures. It shall also bear                               of 7 November 1996
     the costs of the intervener European Passenger Services
     Ltd.                                                            in Case T-298/94: Roquette Freres SA v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union ( ] )
                                                                     (Common agricultural policy — Quota system in relation
                                                                     to the production of potato starch — Regulation (EC)
 4 . The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                No 1868/94 — Action for annulment — Closed group of
     Ireland, together with Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and                                 traders — Inadmissibility)
     France Manche SA (Eurotunnel), shall bear their own
     costs .
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 C ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                     In Case T-298/94 : Roquette Freres SA, established at
                                                                     Lestrem ( France ), represented by Jacques Dutat, of the


title: Case C-21/04: Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
6.3.2004             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 59/21
Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       of the European Communities against Ireland                          Directive 2002/50/EC of the Commission of 6 June 2002
                                                                            on the adaptation to technical progress of Council
                        (Case C-21/04)                                      Directive 1999/36/EC on transportable pressure equip-
                                                                            ment (1) , or in any event by failing to communicate
                        (2004/C 59/35)                                      them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under the Directive;
                                                                      2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 January 2004 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
by Wouter Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                      The period within which the directive had to be transposed
                                                                      expired on 1 January 2003.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations         (1) OJ L 149, 07.06.2002.


title: Case C-281/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Trento Sviluppo Srl and Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. v AGCM

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 6 June 2012 — Trento Sviluppo Srl and Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. v AGCM
   (Case C-281/12)
   2012/C 235/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop.

      Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

      Question referred

   Is Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC, (1) as regards the part in which the Italian-language version uses the words ‘e in ogni caso’, to be understood as meaning that, in order for the existence of a misleading commercial practice to be established, it is sufficient if even only one of the elements referred to in the first part of that paragraph is present, or that, in order for the existence of such a commercial practice to be established, it is also necessary for the additional element to be present, that is to say, the commercial practice must be likely to interfere with a transactional decision adopted by a consumer?

      (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 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case C-499/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Interpretation — General Rules — Rule 3(b) — Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ — Separate packages)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-499/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Interpretation - General Rules - Rule 3(b) - Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ - Separate packages))
   (2016/C 156/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: VAD BVBA, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the judgment

   Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods, such as those in the main proceedings, which are presented for customs clearance in separate packages and are packed together only after that transaction may nevertheless be held to be ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’, within the meaning of that rule and may, therefore, come under a single tariff heading, where it is established, having regard to other objective factors, which it is for the national court to assess, that the goods belong together as a unit and are intended to be presented as such in the retail trade.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case C-329/12: Action brought on 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/23

         Action brought on 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-329/12)
   2012/C 287/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch und B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               rule that, by failing to enact in full the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure transposition of Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC and, in any event, by not notifying those provisions in full to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               impose, under Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 315 036,54 per day on the Federal Republic of Germany, payable to the own resources account of the European Union;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the directive at issue had to be transposed expired on 15 September 2007.
   By a judgement of 2 March 2010, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) ruled that the transposition measures adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany were unconstitutional and void. As a result, the German Government first informed the Commission that the directive had been partially transposed through legislation in force. Subsequently the German Government notified the draft version of a Law transposing the remaining provisions of the directive.
   Since the draft concerned has not, as yet, been adopted, it is, according to the Commission, not open to dispute that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to meet its obligation to transpose the directive in full. The abovementioned partial transposition is, in the Commission’s view, insufficient to attain the objectives of the directive under Article 1. Finally, the Commission points out that, in its opinion, the draft Law notified to it by Germany is insufficient for purposes of full implementation of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54.


title: Case T-30/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Denka International v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/41

         Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Denka International v Commission
   (Case T-30/07)
   (2007/C 82/90)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Denka International BV (Barneveld, The Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Article 2(b) and Annex II of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings, as well as interests thereof.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC (1), of 9 November 2006, amending Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum residue levels for dichlorvos (hereinafter the ‘the MRL Directive ’or ‘the contested measure’) and in particular its Article 2(b) and Annex II thereof.
   The applicant claims that these provisions modify the maximum residue level for the substance at stake from the previously applicable 2 mg/kg to a new threshold value of 0.01 mg/kg based on an underlying assessment of the applicant's dossier conducted under the related assessment of Directive 91/414/EEC (hereinafter, ‘PPPD’) that is procedurally, scientifically and legally flawed.
   Procedurally, the applicant submits that the contested measure was adopted in violation of the procedural safeguards set out in Article 8 of Regulation 451/2000 and the auditum alteram partem principle or principle to a fair hearing, while it also infringes the duty to state reasons (Article 235 EC). In addition, the applicant claims that through the adoption of the contested measure the Commission misused its powers, as it achieved the same objective as a decision of non-inclusion without having recourse to such decision.
   From a substantive legal standpoint, the contested measure is allegedly based on a manifest error of assessment and violates, according to the applicant (i) Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC, (ii) Article 5 of the MRL Directive, as well as (iii) fundamental principles of Community law, namely (a) legitimate expectations and legal certainty, (b) Article 211 EC and the principle of sound administration, and (c) the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2006/92/EC of 9 November 2006 amending annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum levels for captan, dichlorvos, ethion and folpet (OJ, L 311, p. 31).