title: Action brought on 13 January 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-11/95)

text:
 No C 54/10         I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission                     The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Regulation (EEC) No 2791/94 of 16 November 1994 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff         1 . annul the order; and
 quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of tropical
 storm Debbie ( l ) and order the Commission to pay the              2 . declare the action admissible or, in the alternative, join
costs .                                                                   the question of admissibility to the substance and refer
                                                                          the case back to the Court of First Instance, continuing
                                                                          proceedings from the stage at which they were stayed,-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           for a decision on the admissiblity of the applications to
                                                                          intervene .
Insufficient legal basis: Article 30 of Council Regulation
 (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organization of the
market in bananas permits the adoption of specific                   Pleas in law and main arguments
transitional measures solely in order to assist the transition
                                                                     The true nature of Council Directive 93/118/EC of
to the single market from the arrangements existing prior to
its entry into force; it cannot serve as the legal basis for the     22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the
contested Regulation. In the first place, tropical storm             financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat
Debbie has nothing to do with problems relating to the               and poultrymeat (*), hereinafter referred to as 'the contested
transition. Secondly, it was certainly not the Council's             directive', is that of a decision. The margin of discretion
intention to create by means of Article 30 the possibility of        enjoyed by the Member States under the contested
adopting measures which coincide with previously existing            Directive, in so far as it amends Directive 85/73/EEC, is
national measures. The purpose of the latter was principally,        merely token and virtually without effect. A correct and
and sometimes exclusively, to protect national markets. The          comprehensive reading of the directive reveals that the use of
introduction of the single market is intended to remove such         the verb 'may' is merely rhetorical. The contested directive is
                                                                     of direct and individual concern to the members of Asocarne
protective measures. The Commission cannot, therefore,
use Article 30 as a basis for establishing measures similar to       who have a veterinary registration number and were liable
those which existed prior to the single market.                      for fees before its entry into force, so that Asocarne has
                                                                     standing to bring this action inasmuch as the contested
                                                                     directive is of direct and individual concern to its
The allocation of the additional quantity is incompatible            members .
with Article 19 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 :
Article 1 ( 1 ) of the contested regulation allocates the
additional quantity solely among operators affected by the           Contrary to the view of the Court of First Instance, in the
storm, although Article 19 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )              case of directives, the judicial protection of individuals is not
No 404/93 makes no provision for derogating from the                 duly and sufficiently assured by the national courts. The
method of allocation it lays down.                                   administration of justice is necessarily subject to delay.
                                                                    Moreover, some Spanish courts have demonstrated a certain
                                                                    reluctance to make references for preliminary rulings under
(!) OJ No L 296 , 17. 11 . 1990, p . 33 .                           Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.
                                                                     (M OJ No L 340, 31 . 12 . 1993, p. 15 .
Appeal brought on 4 January 1995 by Asociacion Espanola
de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne) against the order made
on 20 October 1994 by the First Chamber of the Court of             Action brought on 13 January 1995 by the Commission of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  the European Communities against the Kingdom of
T-99/94 between Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la                                            Belgium
   Carne (Asocarne) and Council of the European Union                                        (Case C-ll/95 )
                       (Case C-10/95 P)                                                       ( 95/C 54/18 )
                          (95/C 54/17)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
An appeal against the order made on 20 October 1994 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the             represented by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                    as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities in Case T-99/94 between
                                                                    office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la Carne (Asocarne)
and Council of the European Union was brought before the
Court ofJustice of the European Communities on 4 January            The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1995 by Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la Carne
(Asocarne), represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez, of the          1 . declare that,
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, BP                        — by maintaining in respect of the French community
1107, Luxembourg L-1011 .                                                     in the French-speaking region a system of prior
 ---pagebreak--- 4. 3 . 95           | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/11
         authorization for retransmission by cable of                concerning the purchase and production of audiovisual
         television broadcasts from other Member States,             programmes), in itself constitutes a serious obstacle to the
                                                                     retransmission of broadcasts from other Member States
                                                                     which is thereby made harder, more difficult, even
    — by maintaining in respect of the French community              impossible (where authorization is refused or
         in the French-speaking region a system of express           withdrawn).
         prior authorization, to which conditions are
         attached, for retransmission by cable of television
         broadcasts from other Member States containing              It is not for the authorities of a Member State to ensure that
         commercial advertising or a television sales                the individual rights of authors, performing artists and so on
         programme especially intended for viewers in the            are in fact respected.
         French community,
                                                                     Nor is it for the authorities of the State in which
    — by maintaining in respect of the Dutch-speaking                retransmission by means of televisual distribution takes
         community in the Flanders region a system of prior          place to ascertain whether the law applicable in the Member
         authorization for retransmission by cable of                State from which the broadcasts emanate has been complied
         television broadcasts from other Member States,             with. The Directive lays down efficient methods of
                                                                     protecting minors, namely provisional suspension
                                                                     (Article 2 (2), second to fourth sentences). With regard to
    — by failing to adopt in respect of the bilingual                possible infringements of the Directive's other provisions,
         Metropolitan Brussels Region the laws, regulations          the receiving Member State has the opportunity of drawing
         and administrative provisions necessary to comply           the infringing circumstances to the attention of the
         with Article 2 (2 ) of Directive 89/552/EEC,                originating Member State (Articles 169 and 170 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty).
    — by failing to adopt in respect of the
         German-speaking community the laws, regulations             With respect to the argument based on Article 128 of the
         and administrative provisions necessary to comply           Treaty, the Community took cultural factors into
         with Article 2 (2 ) of Directive 89/552/EEC,                consideration even before the Treaty on the Union, when the
                                                                     Council adopted Directive 89/552/EEC, and nothing in
                                                                     Article 128 of the Treaty authorizes Member States to evade
    — by failing to adopt in respect of the French-speaking          their Community obligations.
         community the laws, regulations and administrative
         provisions necessary to comply fully with Articles 14
         and 15 of Directive 89/552/EEC,                              ( Claim 1 , second indent)
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                 As the system is even more restrictive than that hitherto
     obligations under Council Directive 89/552/EEC of               intended to be achieved, in particular with respect to the fact
     3 October 1989 ( x ) on the coordination of certain             that broadcasters are asked to support the French
     provisions laid down by law, regulation or                      community's television stations and printed press, it is all the
     administrative action in Member States, concerning the          more contrary to Article 2 (2 ) of Directive 89/552/EEC . A
     pursuit of television broadcasting activities, in particular    Member State may not assume in a general way, in a piece of
     Aricles 2 , 14 and 15 thereof.                                  legislation, that every broadcaster putting out advertising or
                                                                     a television sales programme especially intended for viewers
                                                                     in that country is in the position concerned in so-called 'Van
2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                    Binsbergen' case-law: all the conditions required by that
                                                                     case-law still have to be met in the case in point.
                                                                     Accordingly, a Member State may not decide that a whole
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      class of broadcasters falls outside the scope of Article 2 ( 2 ) of
                                                                     the directive.
( Claim 1 , first indent)
                                                                      ( Claim 1 , third indent)
While it is true that it is only provision of the Belgian
television distribution services that is subject to                  The system in question is comparable to that referred to in
authorization, cable distribution of television programmes           the first indent of the pleadings.
by broadcasters established in other Member States must
itself be regarded as a transfrontier service and as included in      ( Claim 1 , sixth indent)
the definition of retransmission within the meaning of
Article 2 (2 ) of the Directive. The requirement of prior
authorization by the Executive of the French community,              The Commission observes that there are no provisions
granted after an agreement governed by private law has been          prohibiting advertising of medical treatment (incomplete
concluded with the abovementioned Executive which can                transposition into national law of Article 14 of the
impose conditions not laid down in legislation (particularly         Directive ) or requiring compliance with the criteria laid
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/12           ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
down in Article 15 of the Directive with regard to alcoholic                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 ( l )
beverages of less than 10 degrees strength.                                     introducing Community measures for the control of
                                                                                avian influenza, and
(!) OJ No L 298 , 7. 10. 1989, p. 23 .
                                                                            — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
                                                                                down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                                fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
                                                                                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) (a ) (i ) of Directive
                                                                                91/493/EEC (2),
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Bonn by order of that court of 30 November 1994 in the                      and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission,
case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH                      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      Krankenhausservice, joined party: Lefarth GmbH                        obligations under the penultimate articles of the said
                            Case C-13/95 )                                  directives and under the EC Treaty;
                             ( 95/C 54/19 )
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Bonn (Bonn Labour Court) of 30 November 1994, which
was received at the Court Registry on 1 8 January 1 995, for a         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
preliminary ruling in the case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker             paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, joined                       Article 5 of the EEC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
party: Lefarth GmbH, on the following questions:                       States to whom directives are addressed to adopt the
                                                                       measures necessary for the implementation of such
1 . On the basis of the judgments of the Court of Justice of           directives within the time-limit prescribed therein. The
     14 April 1994 in Case C-392/92 ( J ) and 19 May 1992 in           time-limit in question expired on 1 January 1993 but the
     CaseC-29/91 (2), is Directive 77/1 87/EEC ( 3 ) applicable        Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the necessary
                                                                       measures .
     if an undertaking terminates a contract with an outside
     undertaking in order then to transfer it to another
     outside undertaking?                                              (!) OJ No L 167, 22 . 6.1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       (2 ) OJ No L 187, 7. 7. 1992, p. 41 .
2. Is there a legal transfer within the meaning of the
     directive in the case of the operation described in
     Question 1 even if no tangible or intangible business
     assets are retransferred ?
(M OJ No C 132, 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 4.                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
(2 ) OJ No C 153 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p. 4 .                               Grande Instance de Morlaix by judgment of that court of
(3 ) OJ No L 61 , 18 . 6 . 1992, p. 26 .                               14 December 1994 in the case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast v. 1 .
                                                                       Union Regionale de Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA)
                                                                                and 2. Cooperative du Trieux
                                                                                (Case C-15/95 )
                                                                                95/C 54/21
Action brought on 17 January 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Belgium                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                           (Case C-14/95 )                             Grande Instance (Regional Court), Morlaix, of
                            ( 95/C 54/20 )                             14 December 1994, which was received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 18 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast against 1 . Union Regionale de
before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on              Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA) and 2. Cooperative du
17 January 1995 by the Commission of the European                      Trieux on the following questions:
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1 . On a proper construction of Article 7 of Council
at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,                    Regulation ( EEC) No 857/84 (*) are producers
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   precluded from entering into joint ventures — which are
                                                                            without legal personality of their own, are not effective
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 against third parties and are unpublicized — in so far as
                                                                            they constitute a disguised form of quota-leasing, or are
1 . declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 such ventures authorized as a necessary structural
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply                 adjustment within the meaning of Article 1 of Council
     with                                                                   Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (2)?


title: Case F-16/12: Action brought on 10 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/33

         Action brought on 10 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-16/12)
   2012/C 138/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to change unilaterally the applicant’s posting.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 1 February 2012 to assign the applicant to a post in unit D5 instead of unit A4;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 in non-material damages;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-404/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Greece v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Athens International Airport — Reduction of financial assistance — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-404/05) (1)

   (Cohesion Fund - Athens International Airport - Reduction of financial assistance - Principle of proportionality)
   (2009/C 6/42)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Weimar, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 final of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (new Athens International Airport at Spata) by Commission Decision C(96) 1356 final of 24 May 1996.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case T-16/07: Action brought on 17 January 2007 — Torres v OHIM

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/38

         Action brought on 17 January 2007 — Torres v OHIM
   (Case T-16/07)
   (2007/C 82/86)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Torres (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino, A. Castán Pérez Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés
   Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the decision of 6 November 2006 of the 2nd Board of Appeal of OHIM issued in case R36/2006-2 with costs awarded against OHIM

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TORRE DE BENITEZ ’for products in class 33 (application No. 2.438.018)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International or national trade marks under the word mark ‘Torres ’for products in class 33, numerous other Community, international and national trade marks

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 (1) given that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.


title: Action brought on 12 September 1996 by Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG, Hochland Reich, Summer & Co. KG, Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, Milchwerk Geislingen eG, Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG and Zentral-Molkerei Aurich GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-141/96)

text:
No C 336/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
Action brought on 12 September 1996 by Bergpracht                   Instance of the European Communities on 13 September
Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG, Hochland Reich, Summer &                    19 96 by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg ( Federal Republic of
Co. KG, Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, Milchwerk Geislingen               Germany ), and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, Mosel
eG, Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH &                 ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Michael
Co. KG and Zentral-Molkerei Aurich GmbH against the                 Schütte and Martina Maier, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs
        Commission of the European Communities                      Bruckhaus Westrick Stegemann, Brussels , with an address
                      ( Case T-141 /96 )                            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn
                                                                    & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                         ( 96/C 336/63 )
              (Language of the case: German)                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    — annul Article 2 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of the
An action against the Commission of the European                         Commission of 26 June 1996 ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 12 September                — annul Article 3 ( 2 ) of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
 1996 by Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG, Tettnang                   the Commission of 26 June 1996 in so far as the
( Federal Republic of Germany ), Hochland Reich, Summer
                                                                         combined effective aid intensity, expressed in terms of
& Co . KG, Heimenkirch ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
                                                                         the gross subsidy equivalent, is limited to 22,3 % for
Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, Crailsheim ( Federal Republic of                Mosel II and 20,8 % for Chemnitz II ,
Germany ), Milchwerk Geislingen eG, Geislingen/Steige
( Federal Republic of Germany ), Wendelstein Käsewerk               — annul Article 1 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of the
Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co . KG, Bad Aibling
                                                                         Commission of 26 June 1996 in so far as the amount of
( Federal Republic of Germany ) and Zentral-Molkerei
                                                                         the direct investment grants declared compatible with
Aurich GmbH, Aurich ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
                                                                         the common market is limited to DM 418,7 million,
represented by Jürgen Salzwedel and Michael Loschelder,
Rechtsanwälte , of Messrs Gaedertz Vieregge Quack Kreile ,
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Loesch , of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 1 1
Rue Goethe .                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        1 . Erroneous and incomplete findings of fact
— annul the registration of the name ' feta ' in the list of        The decision did not take into account the initial situation
    protected designations of origin pursuant to Article 1 of       which Volkswagen AG found to exist with regard to the
    Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 June              'green-field ' investments in Mosel II and Chemnitz II . The
    1996 on the registration of geographical indications and        findings of fact were erroneous in so far as they concerned
    designations of origin under the procedure laid down by         the drawbacks          associated with new investment in a
    Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 ,          less-favoured region, particularly as regards suppliers, the
                                                                    training of the workforce, the setting-up of the logistics
— order the Commission of the European Communities to               needed for the commercial production of vehicles and an
    pay the costs.                                                  efficient infrastructure . As a result, the Commission
                                                                    wrongly assumed that what was involved was investment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 extensions to the paint-shop and final assembly plants in
                                                                    Mosel II and the extension of Chemnitz II .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same, in
general terms, as those in Case T-l 39/96 MD Foods Amba             Consequently, the decision was adopted in breach of
and Others v. Commission and Case T-140/96 Societe
                                                                    essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the
Anonyme des Caves et Producteurs Réunis de Roquefort                second paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty .
( Aveyron ) and Others v. Commission .
                                                                    2 . Incorrect application of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC
                                                                         Treaty
                                                                    The decision is illegal inasmuch as the Commission failed to
Action brought on 13 September 1996 by Volkswagen AG                apply Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty . The Commission 's
and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the Commission of               view that the exceptional factors referred to by
                the European Communities                            Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the Treaty must be strictly construed,
                        Case T-143/96 )                             and that they should not be applied to regional aid for new
                                                                    investment projects, is wrong in law, in two respects . First,
                        ( 96/C 336/64 )                             the Commission wrongly failed to apply Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
                                                                    the Treaty at all , without providing a statement of reasons
              (Language of the case: German)                        for this in a manner corresponding to the requirements of
                                                                    Article 190 of the EC Treaty . Second , had the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                    applied Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ), it would necessarily have
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   concluded that the conditions laid down by that provision


title: Case C-249/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1) — Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and of a ‘contract for the provision of services’ — Recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement — Determination of the place of performance of the credit agreement)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö
   (Case C-249/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1) - Concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and of a ‘contract for the provision of services’ - Recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement - Determination of the place of performance of the credit agreement))
   (2017/C 277/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saale Kareda

      Defendant: Stefan Benkö

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a recourse claim between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement constitutes a ‘matter relating to a contract’, as referred to in that provision.

               2.

               The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a credit agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, between a credit institution and two jointly and severally liable debtors, must be classified as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ for the purposes of that provision.

               3.

               The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a credit institution has granted a loan to two jointly and severally liable debtors, the ‘place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’, within the meaning of that provision, is, unless otherwise agreed, the place where that institution has its registered office, and this also applies with a view to determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear and determine an action for recourse between those joint debtors.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-104/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Scheme for the import of bananas originating in ACP countries to the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission
   (Case T-104/06) (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Scheme for the import of bananas originating in ACP countries to the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 56/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (Douala, Cameroon) (represented by: B. Doré, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 of 8 February 2006 opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quota for bananas falling under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1 March to 31 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 22)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-304/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 30 May 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 30 May 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury
   (Case C-304/16)
   (2016/C 270/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: American Express Co.

      Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, Diners Club International Limited, MasterCard Europe S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the requirement in Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 (1) (‘the IFR’) that a three party payment card scheme issuing card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent, is considered to be a four party payment card scheme, apply only to the extent that the co-branding partner or agent acts as the ‘issuer’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) and recital (29) of the IFR (namely where that partner or agent has a contractual relationship with the payer, pursuant to which it contracts to provide the payer with a payment instrument to initiate and process the payer's card-based payment transactions)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question (l) is ‘no’, are Articles 1(5) and 2(18) of the IFR invalid in so far as they provide that such arrangements are considered to be four party payment card schemes, on the grounds of:

                           (a)

                           failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU;

                           (b)

                           manifest error of assessment; and/or

                           (c)

                           breach of the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/751 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions.

      OJ L 123, p. 1


title: Case C-192/02: Action brought on 23 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/25
—     The object of Directive 2002/15/EC is not road safety                     within the areas of which those economic activities are
      because it is regulates working time rather than driving                  carried on, and by restricting exclusively to municipalities
      time. In contrast, Regulation No 3820/85 (2), which                       the conduct of the activity of posting advertisements,
      applies to all types of carriers, self-employed and                       results in giving surreptitious finance to the municipal
      employed, regulates driving time and breaks and rest                      advertising undertaking?
      periods.
—     Failure to state reasons: there is a failure to state the           3)    May Article 2 (ex Article 2), Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) (ex
      reasons for bringing self-employed operators within the                   Article 3), (as amended by Article 2(3) and Article 61(1)
      scope of the directive at issue. Recital 8 in the preamble                of the Treaty of Amsterdam), of Article 23 (ex Article 9),
      to the directive lacks precision.                                         of Article 27 (ex Article 29) (a) (b) and (d), and of
                                                                                Article 31 (ex Article 37) (1) and (3) of the EC Treaty be
                                                                                construed as meaning that they preclude a law of a
                                                                                Member State — in this instance, Italy — which provides
(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.                                                for a tax on advertising and imposes payment of charges
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                                for public bill-posting, including that tax, payable to
    the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
    transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1).                                   municipalities which engage in the posting of bills on an
                                                                                exclusive basis?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 9 April 2002 in
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
                        Immobilier S.a.r.l.                               Action brought on 23 May 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                         (Case C-190/02)
                                                                                (Case C-192/02)
                         (2002/C 169/44)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/45)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 9 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 22 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 May
Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:                           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
1)    whether it is contrary to the proper interpretation of              Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
      Articles 49 (ex Article 59) and 50 (ex Article 60) for the          Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      law of the Italian State to introduce, govern and make
      regulations for advertising tax and bill-posting charges,
      restricting the management of these exclusively to Italian
      municipalities, and whether the concept of the provision            In its application, as amended by the corrigendum lodged on
      of services, as provided in Article 50 (ex Article 60) of           28 May 2002, the applicant claims that the Court should:
      the EC Treaty, can include the activity pursued by the
      agencies of the municipal authorities or by entities
      entrusted with the operation of this field of economic              1.    declare that by:
      activity.
2)    Must Articles 81 (ex Article 85), 82 (ex Article 86),                     (a)   incorrectly transposing into Austrian law the defi-
      86 (ex Article 90) and 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty                      nitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in
      be construed as meaning that they preclude legislation                          Article 1(e) and (f) of Council Directive 75/442/
      which, by providing for a tax on outdoor advertising or a                       EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended, in
      charge for bill-posting payable to the municipalities                           conjunction with Annexes II A and II B thereto, and
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.7.2002
      (b) incorrectly or incompletely transposing into Austri-                  (a)   not transposing into Austrian law the obligation to
            an law the obligation imposed on the competent                            separate waste laid down in Article 2(4) of Council
            authorities by Article 13 of the directive to undertake                   Directive 91/689/EEC(1) of 12 December 1991 on
            appropriate periodic inspections of establishments                        hazardous waste, as amended (2), and
            and undertakings which carry out the operations
            referred to in Articles 9 to 12 of the directive, the               (b) not fully transposing the obligation on the auth-
            Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations                  orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections
            under Article 1(e) and (f) of the directive in conjunc-                   of producers of hazardous waste laid down in
            tion with Annexes II A and II B thereto and                               Article 4(1) of the directive, or the obligation on the
            Article 13 of the directive;                                              authorities to carry out inspections laid down in
                                                                                Article 5(2), the Republic of Austria has failed to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                                 fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(4), 4(1) and
                                                                                5(2) of the directive;
                                                                          2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in                 There is no provision of Austrian law which clearly transposes
Article 1(e) and (f) in conjunction with Annexes II A and II B            the duty to separate mixed waste imposed by Article 2(4) of
of Directive 75/442/EEC are of central importance to the                  the directive.
uniform terminology of Community waste law and the
realisation of European waste policy. Under the legal pro-                In addition, the duty to carry out inspections prescribed by
visions in force in the Republic of Austria, terminology                  Austrian law relates only to those entities which collect and
inconsistent with that used in the directive is employed for the          handle hazardous waste, but does not extend to producers of
classification of operations which are regulated in Community             hazardous waste, as required by Directive 91/689/EEC. There
law by the definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’.                      is also no comprehensive obligation on the competent auth-
                                                                          orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of estab-
                                                                          lishments and undertakings as required by Article 5(2) of the
In addition, the provisions in the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (the
                                                                          directive.
Austrian Trade Code of 1994) relating to industrial plants do
not adequately meet the requirements of Article 13 of the
directive, because those provisions do not provide that the               (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
inspection must be carried out by the competent authorities.              (2) Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, OJ L 168, 2.7.1994,
                                                                              p. 28.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Irinodikio
                                                                          Athinon by judgment of that court of 13 May 2002 in the
Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission                           case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepiki-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              nonion Elladas (OTE)
                              Austria
                                                                                (Case C-196/02)
                         (Case C-194/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/47)
                         (2002/C 169/46)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Irinodikio Athinon
                                                                          (Small Claims Court, Athens) of 13 May 2002, received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 27 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepikinonion
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May                Elladas (OTE) on the following questions:
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,          1.    Are the existence and operation of a rule, such as, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                 the present case, Article 24a(2a) of the General Staff
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,                 Regulations of the Organismos Tilepikinonion Elladas
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                          (OTE), under which it is laid down that (only) women
                                                                                are taken on as cleaners on employment contracts of
                                                                                indefinite duration for part-time or intermittent employ-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     ment, consistent with the requirements which arise from
                                                                                Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and Directives 117/75 and
1.    declare that by:                                                          207/76?


title: Case T-45/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Micronas v OHIM (3D-Panorama)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Micronas v OHIM (3D-Panorama)
   (Case T-45/05) (1)

   (2006/C 261/64)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-85/00: Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
13.5.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 135/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Ter-              the Court should:
cera, by order of that court of 14 February 2000 in the
case of Telefónica de España, S.A. and Administración del          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative,
                  Estado and Retevisión, S.A.                             to communicate to the Commission, within the period
                                                                           prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                         (Case C-79/00)                                    visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                           96/86/EC (1)of 13 December 1996 adapting to technical
                        (2000/C 135/15)                                    progress Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation
                                                                           of the laws of the Member States with regard to the
                                                                           transport of dangerous goods by road, the Hellenic Repub-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
European Communities by an order of the Tribunal Supremo,                  that directive.
Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Tercera
(Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Division, Third
                                                                      (2) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Telefónica
de España, S.A. and Administración del Estado and Retevisión,
S.A., on the following question:                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Does a combined interpretation of Articles 4(2) and 9(2), in          The binding nature of the third paragraph of Articles 249 and
relation to Annex VII (Part 2(c)) of Directive 97/33/EC (1) of        10 EC (formerly Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) requires
the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997            Member States to take the measures necessary to transpose
on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to               directives into their legal system before the expiry of the period
ensuring universal service and interoperability through appli-        prescribed for that purpose and to notify those measures to
cation of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP),             the Commission immediately. When the relevant time-limit
allow                                                                 expired on 1 January 1997 the Hellenic Republic had not
                                                                      notified the Commission of measures transposing the directive
a) the national regulatory authorities to impose ex ante on an        in question into national law.
    operator having significant market power the obligation
    to provide other operators with access to the subscriber
    loop and to offer interconnection at local and higher-level       (1) OJ 1996 L 335, p. 43.
    switching centres;
b) or, on the contrary, do those authorities have the power
    — with regard to access and interconnection at those
    specific network points — only ‘to promote’ agreements
    negotiated between the various operators, but not to
    impose such access and interconnection as an ex ante
    obligation on an operator with significant market power?
                                                                      Action brought on 10 March 2000 by the European
(1) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.                                        Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-93/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/17)
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties on 10 March 2000 by the European Parliament, represent-
                         (Case C-85/00)                               ed by Christian Pennera, Head of Division in its Legal Service,
                                                                      and Evelyn Waldherr, a Member of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                      Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                        (2000/C 135/16)
                                                                      Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Mail and
                                                                      Registration Service, Alcide de Gasperi Building, Kirchberg.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Legal Advisor, and Maria Patakia, both of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            — annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/99 of 21 Decem-
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal                   ber 1999 providing for the general rules for a compulsory
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         beef labelling system (1);


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Reggio Emilia by order of that court of 15 June 1995 in the case of Max Mara Fashion Group SRL against Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia (Case C-307/95)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             Tributaria di Primo Grado di Reggio Emilia by order of that
                                                                      court of 15 June 1995 in the case of Max Mara Fashion
                        of 7 March 1996                               Group SRL against Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia
in Case C-360/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the                                        Case C-307/95 )
                       European Union (')                                                        ( 96/C 133/22 )
(Common commercial policy — Services — Government
                           procurement)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 133/21 )                            European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria di Primo Grado (Tax Court of First Instance ),
                                                                      Reggio Emilia of 15 June 1995 , which was received at the
                  (Language of the case: French)                      Court Registry on 27 September 1995 , for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling in the case of Max Mara Fashion Group SRL against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia . The Commissione
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Tributaria made a reference for a preliminary ruling under
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty on the interpretation of
                                                                      Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
In Case C-360/93 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann              indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ, English Special
Schoo and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) v . Council of the               Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by Council Directive
European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Amadeu                    85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ).
Lopes Sabino ), supported by Commission of the European               The Court made an order on 21 December 1995 , the
Communities ( Agents : Jorn Sack and Patrick Hetsch ) and by          operative part of which is as follows :
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
( Agent: John E. Collins ) — Application for the annulment of         The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by
Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning                 Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado , Reggio Emilia, by
the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of a                       an order of 15 June 1995 is inadmissible.
Memorandum of Understanding between the European
Economic Community and the United States of America on
government procurement ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 1 ) and
Council Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning
the extension of the benefit of the provisions of                     Action brought on 24 January 1996 by the Commission of
Directive 90/53 1 /EEC in respect of the United States of             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
America ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 54 ), — the Court ( Sixth                                           Spain
 Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the                                        ( Case C-21 /96 )
 Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                                            ( 96/C 133/23 )
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges;
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, Registrar: R. Grass, has               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which the operative             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 part is as follows :                                                 24 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack, Legal
 1 , annuls Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993                Adviser, and Isabel Martinez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
      concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
      of a Memorandum of Understanding between the                    Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      European Economic Community and the United States
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should :
       of America on government procurement and Council
      Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning the                1 , declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
       extension of the benefit of the provisions of                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 90/531 /EEC in respect of the United States of            Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/446/Euratom
      America ;
                                                                           of 3 September 1 984 laying down basic measures for the
                                                                           radiation protection of persons undergoing medical
 2 , maintains in force the effects of the annulled                        examination or treatment (') or by failing to inform the
       decisions;                                                          Commission of the measures it has adopted for the
                                                                           transposition of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
 3 , orders the Council to pay the costs;                                  establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;
                                                                           and
 4 , orders the Commission and the United Kingdom to bear              2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
       their own costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
 (') OJ No C 232 , 28 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom
                                                                       Treaty, the Directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed,


title: Case C-369/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chițea and Others v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chițea and Others v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov
   (Case C-369/12)
   2012/C 343/04
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chițea and Others

      Defendants: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the second sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted, with reference to Article 20 of that Charter, as meaning that employees paid from public funds have the same rights as the employees of commercial companies which are State-owned or subsidised by the State budget?

               2.

               Must the second sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted, with reference to Article 21(1) of that Charter, as precluding discrimination between employees paid from public funds and employees of commercial companies which are State-owned or subsidised by the State budget?

               3.

               Must the phrase ‘his or her possessions’ (with reference to citizens) in the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as also covering remuneration rights?

               4.

               Must the phrase ‘in the public interest’ in the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as relating to ‘economic crisis’?

               5.

               Must the words ‘use of property. in so far as is necessary for the general interest’ in the third sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as covering a ‘25 % reduction of the salaries of public sector employees’?

               6.

               If the Romanian State were to reduce by 25 % the remuneration of employees paid from public funds, citing as justification the economic crisis and the need to balance the State budget, would that mean that, subsequently, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the State would be under an obligation to pay those employees fair compensation in good time for the loss sustained?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 15 January 1997, in the case of Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-48/97)

text:
No C 108/ 10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5 . 4 . 97
in the initial correspondence, or in bilateral talks, or in the                supply' in Article 11 ( A) ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth Council
arbitration procedure, that the inspection system gave rise                    Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
to the significant risks it claims. Moreover, the inspection                   harmonization of the laws of the Member States
reports pursuant to Regulation (EEC ) No 618/90 were                           relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 3 in                           value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (') to be
conjunction with Annex II of that regulation. The                              interpreted to cover the whole cost of the redemption
requirements placed by the Commission on the inspection                        goods ?
procedure in Germany were based, as least in so far as
their contents were concerned, on Article 17 of Regulation
( EEC) No 2456/93 , a legal basis which at the time in                   2.    Are the redemption goods to be treated as ' supplies
question, namely 1992, was not yet applicable . The                            made for consideration' for the purposes of Article 5
accusation that the German inspection system was                               ( 6 ) of that Directive ?
unreliable can be seen to be untenable merely by looking
at the actual economic circumstances, since an exchange
of good quality procedure for lesser quality produce,                    3.    If the redemption goods are provided otherwise than
which the Commission regards as possible, would                                for consideration or 'free of charge', is Article 5 ( 6 )
inevitably have led to complaints from purchasers, who                         to be interpreted as requiring that the provision of
would have been defrauded in those circumstances . The                         the redemption goods be treated as a supply for
 German Government maintains that its position is further                      consideration notwithstanding that such provision is
supported by the final report of the arbitration body.                          for business purposes ?
 (') OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p . 26 .                             4.     Do any of the foregoing questions require a different
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .                                    answer
                                                                                ( a ) where all the vouchers redeemed for any item of
                                                                                redemption goods were obtained on purchases of
                                                                                premium goods from the promoter of the scheme,
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                                ( b ) where those vouchers were all obtained on
 Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 15 January
  1997, in the case of Kuwait Petroleum (GB ) Ltd against                              purchases of premium goods from a trader who
               the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                                 was a participating dealer in the scheme, or
                             (Case C-48/97 )
                                                                                ( c ) where the vouchers redeemed were obtained
                              97/C 108/ 17 )                                           partly on purchases of premium goods from the
                                                                                promoter and partly on purchases of premium
                                                                                goods from one or more participating dealers ?
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  European Communities by a direction of the VAT and
  Duties Tribunal, London, of 15 January 1997, which was                  5.     If the answer to question 3 is 'No', is the United
  received at the Court Registry /on 6 February 1997, for a                      Kingdom entitled pursuant to Article 27 of the Sixth
  preliminary ruling in the case of Kuwait Petroleum ( GB )                      Council Directive and under the derogation obtained
  Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on                        by it in 1977 to impose an output tax charge on the
  the following questions:                                                       promoter which is based on the cost to the promoter
                                                                                of the redemption goods in addition to the output tax
                                                                                included in the full retail price of the premium
  Where a supplier of goods operates a business promotion                         goods ?
   scheme, under which, in outline :
                                                                          H OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
   (i)     the promoter provided redemption goods for business
           purposes in accordance with the terms of the scheme;
   ( ii ) for no payment in money at the point of redemption;
                                                                          Action brought on 6 February 1997 by the Commission of
    ( iii) against the redemption of vouchers to which a                     the European Communities against the French Republic
           purchaser of premium goods became entitled by
           paying the full retail price of those goods without                                       ( Case C-49/97)
           making any identifiable monetary payment for the                                            ( 97/C 108/ 18 )
           vouchers .
     1.     Is the expression 'price discounts and rebates allowed        An action against the French Republic was brought before
            to the customer and accounted for at the time of               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Action brought on 1 March 1995 by Viriato Monteiro da Silva against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-74/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 101 /21
 II. 1 . The applicant contests the Commission's factual              Action brought on 1 March 1995 by Viriato Monteiro
           and legal conclusions regarding its participation          da Silva against the Commission of the European
           in the alleged 'Cembureau agreement'. Those                                         Communities
          conclusions were based on insufficient evidence .
                                                                                (Case T-74/95 )
           According to the principles governing the liability
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /41 )
           of legal persons, the conduct complained of by the
           Commission      cannot    be    attributed   to   the
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
           applicant.
      2. The applicant contests the Commission's factual              An action against the Commission of the European
           and legal conclusions regarding an exchange                Communities was brought before the Court of First
           of information in relation to prices. The                  Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 1995 by
           dissemination of the average prices published by           Viriato Monteiro da Silva, residing in Brussels, represented
           the Federal Statistical Office, details of which are       by Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels
           freely available to the public at large, cannot            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
           constitute a restriction of competition. The               of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
           objections regarding the exchange of price
           information in the course of meetings are based on         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           insufficient evidence .
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Commission of 6 April 1994
      3 . The applicant contests the objection regarding                  fixing Brussels as the applicant's place of recruitment,
           participation in alleged 'agreements on the                    and
           participation of the market' between France and
           Germany. Those objections, which relate to alleged         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           agreements concerning the partition of the market
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           in Saarland and the general regulation of cement
           supplies between France and Germany, are not               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
           substantiated by the evidence adduced . Similarly,         relied on in Case T-33/95 .
           the objections regarding the exchange of statistical
           data between the SFIC and the applicant are based
           on erroneous assumptions of fact.
      4. The applicant did not participate in the alleged                   Removal from the register of Case T-503/93 ( l )
           activities of which the Commission complains
           regarding the Greek cement industry and/or the                                     ( 95/C 101 /42
           protection of the Italian market.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
III. The applicant objects that the imposition of a fine is
      inadmissible, since no intentional or negligent act on          By order of 7 March 1995 the President of the Second
      the part of any representative or employee appointed            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      by law or in accordance with its statutes, or any other         Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      person authorized by it, can be attributed to the               T-503/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio v. Commission of the European
      applicant.                                                      Communities .
                                                                      (M OJ No C 272, 8 . 10 . 1993 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2000 in Case T-136/98: Anna Maria Campogrande v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Duty to render assistance — Sexual harassment)

text:
7.4.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 108/15
3.    Orders the applicants to bear 10 % of their own costs;               3.    orders the defendant to bear the costs in Case T-130/98.
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay 90 %          4.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs, including
      of the costs incurred by the applicants;                                   those relating to the interlocutory proceedings, in Case
                                                                                T-131/98.
5.    Orders the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste to
      bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                       of 13 December 2000
                                                                           in Case T-136/98: Anna Maria Campogrande v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Case T-130/98 and T-131/98: Francis Panichelli
                     v European Parliament (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Duty to render assistance — Sexual harass-
(Temporary agents — Engaged on the basis of Article 2(c)                                                    ment)
of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the
Communities — Reclassification of a post — Absence of                                                (2001/C 108/25)
promotion to Grade A 4 — Staff reports — Action for
annulment and claim for damages — Admissibility of the
action — Dismissal pursuant to Article 47(2)(a) of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Com-                                         (Language of the case: French)
munities — Whether internal procedure observed — Reason
                for dismissal — Misuse of powers)                          In Case T-136/98: Anna Maria Campogrande, an official at
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                          (2001/C 108/24)                                  Brussels, represented by A. Krywin, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                           A. Lutgen, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
                     (Language of the case: French)                        F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — first, application for annulment of
                                                                           the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the appli-
In Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98: Francis Panichelli,                 cant’s request for assistance of 27 June 1997 and, secondly, a
former temporary agent of the European Parliament, residing                claim for damages to make good the harm suffered — the
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot,                  Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg             President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Blanca
at the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,                   Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
against European Parliament (Agents: M. Moore and J. Sant’An-              judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it:
na) — application for (Case T-130/98) annulment of the
implied rejection of the applicant’s request of 11 July 1997               1.    annuls the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the
and for an order requiring the defendant to pay damages and                      applicant’s request for assistance of 27 June 1997;
(Case T-131/98) for annulment of the decision communicated
on 2 July 1998 bringing to an end the applicant’s temporary                2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;
contract — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-             3.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
trar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2000, in which it:
1.    joins Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 for the purpose of the             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
      judgment.
2.    dismisses the applications in Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98.


title: Case C-356/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-356/14)
   2014/C 329/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft.

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Questions referred

               1.

               In accordance with the provisions of Community law, is a breeding animal of the bovine species, which has been entered, as its parents and grandparents were, in the herd-book of the Holstein-Friesian breed by the official organisation of breeders of the Member State, to be considered pure-bred, regardless of the degree of genetic purity of breed of its ancestors?

               2.

               Must the provision of Decision 2005/379/EC (1) to which reference is made be interpreted as meaning that breeding animals with pedigree certificates that contain the phrase set out in Article 2(1)(a) of that decision are to be considered pure-bred breeding animals and, consequently, give rise to an entitlement to export aids when they are the subject of intra-Community trade?

               3.

               In view of the foregoing, is it possible to consider that, although an animal holds a pedigree certificate which has been issued by an association of breeders of the Member State and in which the abovementioned phrase is included, such an animal, when it is the subject of intra-Community trade, does not confer on the trader an entitlement to export aids because it is not considered a pure-bred breeding animal despite there being an official document in which the abovementioned phrase is included?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 17 May 2005 on pedigree certificates and particulars for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species, their semen, ova and embryos (OJ 2005 L 125, p. 15).


title: Case C-397/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible — No failure to state reasons — Imprecise ground of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/50

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-397/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible - No failure to state reasons - Imprecise ground of appeal - Ground of appeal seeking reconsideration of the application at first instance)
   2013/C 225/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: E Deshoulières, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission, by which the General Court rejected as manifestly unfounded in law an application for compensation of a loss allegedly suffered due to the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1) — Conditions on which an action for compensation may be brought — Wrongful act of an institution

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case T-59/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career evaluation report — Appraisal year 2012 — Errors of law — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/27

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-59/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Career evaluation report - Appraisal year 2012 - Errors of law - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 221/37)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, and subsequently by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-9/14, EU:F:2015:163) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.