title: Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Existing or new aid — Article 1(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Misuse of powers — Obligation to state reasons — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Effect on trade between Member States — Distortion of competition)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — Ireland and Aughinish Alumina v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II) (1)

   ((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Existing or new aid - Article 1(b)(i), (iii) and (iv) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Reasonable time - Principle of sound administration - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Effect on trade between Member States - Distortion of competition))
   (2016/C 200/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and E. McPhillips, acting as Agents, and P. McGarry, Senior Counsel); Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented by: C. Waterson, C. Little and J. Handoll, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), to the extent that that decision concerns the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region (Ireland).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases T-50/06, T-50/06 RENV I and T-50/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

               3.

               Orders Aughinish Alumina Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases 0T-69/06, T-69/06 RENV I and T-69/06 RENV II, three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P and all the costs in Case T-69/06 R;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Joined Cases T-50/06 and T-69/06, Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV I and T-69/06 RENV I and Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-62/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Immacolata Racca v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Immacolata Racca v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-62/13)
   2013/C 141/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Immacolata Racca

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the regulatory framework for the schools sector [which allows for a succession of fixed-term contracts, without interruption of continuity, with the same teacher for an indeterminate number of times, including in order to address permanent staffing needs] constitute an equivalent measure within the meaning of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC? (1)

               2.

               When is an employment relationship to be regarded as being for the public service of the ‘State’, for the purposes of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC and, in particular, within the meaning of the expression ‘specific sectors and/or categories of workers’, and thus capable of justifying results that are different from those which ensue from employment relationships in the private sector?

               3.

               Having regard to the explanations contained in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of employment conditions contained in Clause 4 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC also include the consequences of the unlawful interruption of an employment relationship? If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for in national law for the unlawful interruption of fixed-term employment relationships and for the unlawful interruption of employment relationships of indefinite duration justifiable under Clause 4?

               4.

               By virtue of the principle of sincere cooperation, is a State precluded from presenting to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a request for a preliminary ruling a deliberately untrue description of a national legislative framework and are the national courts obliged, in the absence of any alternative interpretation of national law that also satisfies the obligations deriving from membership of the European Union to the same degree, to interpret, where possible, national law in accordance with the interpretation given by the State?

               5.

               Is a statement of the circumstances in which a fixed-term employment contract may be converted into a permanent contract one of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship contemplated by Directive 91/533/EEC, (4) in particular, by Article 2(1) and (2)(e) thereof?

               6.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, is a retroactive amendment to the legislative framework which does not guarantee that employees can claim the rights conferred on them by the directive, that is to say, that the conditions of employment specified in the document under which they were recruited will be observed, contrary to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/533/EEC and to the objectives of that directive, in particular those mentioned in the second recital of the preamble thereto?

               7.

               Must the general principles of [European Union] law presently in force concerning legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, procedural equality, effective judicial protection, the right to an independent court or tribunal and, more generally, the right to due process, guaranteed by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by Article 1.8 of the Treaty of Lisbon and as referred to by Article 46 TEU), read in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and with Articles 46, 47 and 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, as incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon, be interpreted as precluding, within the scope of Directive 1999/70/EC, the adoption by the Italian State, after a significant period of time (three and a half years), of a legislative provision such as Article 9 of Decree-Law No 70 of 13 May 2011, converted by way of Law No 106 of 12 July 2011, [which] added to Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 368/01 a paragraph 4a which is liable to alter the consequences of ongoing proceedings by directly placing at a disadvantage the worker and benefiting the State in its capacity as employer, and by eliminating the possibility conferred by the national legal system of penalising the abusive repeated renewal of fixed-term contracts?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

      (4)  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).


title: Case T-132/07: Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Fuji Electric Holdings and Fuji Electric Systems v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/36

         Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Fuji Electric Holdings and Fuji Electric Systems v Commission
   (Case T-132/07)
   (2007/C 140/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Fuji Electric Holdings Co., Ltd (Kawasaki, Japan) and Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: P. Chapatte, P. Walter, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants respectfully request the Court to:

               —

               annul Article 1(g) of the decision in so far as it finds that the infringement imputed to FEH by that provision existed after September 2000;

               —

               annul Article 1(h) of the decision in its entirety;

               —

               annul Article 2(d) of the decision in so far as it imputes joint and several liability upon FES for the fine imposed pursuant to that provision;

               —

               annul Article 2(f) of the decision in so far as it imputes joint and several liability upon Fuji for the fine imposed pursuant to that provision;

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on Fuji; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fuji.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants lodged an action for annulment, under Article 230 EC against Commission decision of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear — C(2006) 6762 final), on the basis of which the Commission found the applicants, among other undertakings, liable to have infringed Article 81(1) EC and from 1 January 1994 also Article 53 EEA in the gas insulated switchgear sector (hereinafter ‘GIS’), through a set of agreements and concerted practices consisting of (a) market sharing, (b) the allocation of quotas and maintenance of the respective market shares, (c) the allocation of individual GIS projects (bid-rigging) to designated producers and the manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, (d) price fixing, (e) agreements to cease licence agreements with non-cartel members and (f) exchanges of sensitive market information. In the alternative, the applicants apply for a substantial reduction of the fines imposed.
   The decision holds Fuji Electric Systems (hereinafter ‘FES’) liable for participating in the infringement from 15 April 1988 to 30 September 2002.
   However, FES disputes that it participated in the GQ agreement and claims that it was not involved in the GIS sales up until 1 July 2001, around nine months after Fuji Electric Holdings (‘FEH’) had ceased participating in the cartel. In finding that FEH continued its participation in the GQ agreement after the Japanese members' meeting which took place around September 2000, it is submitted that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment, an error of law with regards to the burden of proof as well as an error of law in relation to equal treatment.
   Moreover, Fuji maintains that it should not be held jointly and severally liable for the involvement of Japan AE Power Systems Corporation (hereinafter ‘JAEPS’) in the cartel since it neither had the ability to exercise decisive influence over JAEPS nor did it have any knowledge of its alleged participation in the cartel. Hence, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment with regards to the infringement of FES.
   Finally, Fuji sustains that the decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment with regards to the duration of the infringement as well as the liability for the alleged infringement of JAEPS. In addition, the Commission has incorrectly determined the value of the information provided by the applicants, in holding that it did not warrant a reduction of the fine imposed upon the applicants pursuant to the Leniency Notice. In this respect, Fuji claims that the fines imposed should be substantially reduced.


title: Case C-430/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Article 29(1)(d) — Determination of the customs value — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 143(1)(h) — Definition of ‘related persons’ for the purposes of determining the customs value — Kinship relationship between the buyer, a natural person, and the director of the company which sold the goods)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Artūrs Stretinskis
   (Case C-430/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Article 29(1)(d) - Determination of the customs value - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 143(1)(h) - Definition of ‘related persons’ for the purposes of determining the customs value - Kinship relationship between the buyer, a natural person, and the director of the company which sold the goods))
   (2016/C 098/14)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Defendant: Artūrs Stretinskis

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a buyer, who is a natural person, and a seller, which is a legal person, within which a kin of that buyer actually has the power to influence the sales price of goods for the benefit of that buyer, must be regarded as being related persons within the meaning of Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-586/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/20

         Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-586/14)
   2014/C 372/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (Anhui, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: Y. Melin and V. Akritidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China, as far as it applies to Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd; and

               —

               Order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law in considering that the applicant’s production costs and financial situation are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, third indent.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and failed to adduce consistent evidence in deducting from the applicant’s export price a sales agent commission equivalent to the mark-up charged to the applicant by a related company in Hong Kong, without adducing adequate evidence that this related company was indeed operating as a commission-based agent, in breach of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not calculate the applicant’s export price on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold to the EU, nor is it based on the price at which the exported product is first resold to an independent buyer in the EU, in breach of Article 2(8) and (9) of the basic Regulation.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the essential facts and evidences making it possible to understand how it calculated the applicant’s dumping and injury margins, in breach of Article 20 of the basic Regulation and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 of 13 May 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 142, p. 1).


title: Case T-624/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/37

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)
   (Case T-624/13)
   2014/C 45/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1504/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colour green containing the verbal element ‘Darjeeling’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 466 269

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case C-215/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Augsburg): Bruno Schnitzer (Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC — Skilled services in the plastering trade — National rules requiring foreign skilled-trade undertakings to be entered on the trades register — Proportionality)

text:
21.2.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 47/3
The principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC imposes on            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
an administrative body an obligation to review a final administrative         Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
decision, where an application for such review is made to it, in order        it has ruled:
to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in
the meantime by the Court where                                               Article 141 EC, in principle, precludes legislation, such as that at
                                                                              issue before the national court, which, in breach of the European
—     under national law, it has the power to reopen that decision;           Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
                                                                              Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, prevents a couple
—     the administrative decision in question has become final as a           such as K.B. and R. from fulfilling the marriage requirement which
      result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance;      must be met for one of them to be able to benefit from part of the
                                                                              pay of the other. It is for the national court to determine whether in a
—     that judgment is, in the light of a decision given by the Court         case such as that in the main proceedings a person in K.B.’s situation
      subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community             can rely on Article 141 EC in order to gain recognition of her right
      law which was adopted without a question being referred to the          to nominate her partner as the beneficiary of a survivor’s pension.
      Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234(3) EC; and
                                                                              (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
—     the person concerned complained to the administrative body
      immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              of 11 December 2003
                          of 7 January 2004                                   in Case C-215/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Amtsgericht Augsburg): Bruno Schnitzer (1)
in Case C-117/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):                       (Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC —
K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency, Secretary                     Skilled services in the plastering trade — National rules
                        of State for Health (1)                               requiring foreign skilled-trade undertakings to be entered on
                                                                                the trades register — Proportionality)
(Article 141 EC — Directive 75/117/EEC — Equal treatment
                                                                                (2004/C 47/05)
for men and women — Transsexual partner not entitled to a
survivor’s pension payable solely to a surviving spouse —
                Discrimination on grounds of sex)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
                           (2004/C 47/04)                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              In Case C-215/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Amtsgericht Augsburg (Germany) for a preliminary
In Case C-117/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    ruling in the proceedings before that court against Bruno
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                         Schnitzer, on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC, 50 EC, 54
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 EC and 55 EC and Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July
before that court between K.B. and National Health Service                    1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional
Pensions Agency, Secretary of State for Health, on the interpret-             measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons in
ation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC                   manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC
of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the                   Major Groups 23-40 (Industry and small craft industries) (OJ,
Member States relating to the application of the principle of                 English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 148), the Court (Fifth
equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19), the Court,                 Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting
composed of: V. Skouris, President, C.W.A. Timmermans,                        for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas (Presidents                    S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken,                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                  on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/4                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.2.2004
Community law on freedom to provide services precludes a business             composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the
from being subject to an obligation to be entered on the trades register      Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and
which delays, complicates or renders more onerous the provision of its        N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
services in the host Member State where the conditions prescribed by          General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
the directive governing recognition of professional qualifications            has given a judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has
which is applicable to pursuit of that activity in the host Member            ruled:
State are satisfied.
                                                                              Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
                                                                              28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
The mere fact that a business established in one Member State
                                                                              milk products sector do not authorise the competent body to act
supplies identical or similar services in a repeated or more or less
                                                                              directly, in cases other than that of direct sales, against a producer to
regular manner in a second Member State, without having an
                                                                              recover the amount owed by him in respect of the additional levy on
infrastructure there enabling it to pursue a professional activity there
                                                                              milk. However, the Member States’ obligation under Article 10 EC
on a stable and continuous basis and, from the infrastructure, to hold
                                                                              to take measures to ensure collection of the levy in the event of the
itself out to, amongst others, nationals of the second Member State,
                                                                              mechanism provided for in Article 2(2) of that regulation being
cannot be sufficient for it to be regarded as established in the second
                                                                              frustrated includes the power to take direct action against the producer
Member State.
                                                                              with a view to recovering the amount payable where it is established
                                                                              that the producer has not paid it to the purchaser and that the
                                                                              purchaser is not taking due steps to collect it from the producer. On
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                              the other hand, non-compliance with the conditions laid down in
                                                                              Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
                                                                              1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
                                                                              levy on milk and milk products, and in particular the absence of
                                                                              approval as purchaser, is not in itself relevant.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 15 January 2004
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Peny-                                                of 13 January 2004
                   coed Farming Partnership (1)
                                                                              in Case C-256/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the                         the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to                   Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Edu-
a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the                             cation Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Pro-
                               producer)                                      fessional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Sec-
                                                                                retary of State for Education and Employment (1)
                           (2004/C 47/06)
                                                                              (Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct effect
                                                                              — Meaning of worker — Self-employed female lecturer
                     (Language of the case: English)                          undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that
                                                                              which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers
                                                                              who are employees, but under contract with a third company
                                                                              — Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an
In Case C-230/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                        occupational pension scheme)
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                           (2004/C 47/07)
court between The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
and Penycoed Farming Partnership, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992                                            (Language of the case: English)
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) and Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk                    In Case C-256/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)


title: Case T-236/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Aldershoff v Commission (Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons — Right to be heard)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Aldershoff v Commission
   (Case T-236/05) (1)

   (Career development report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to state reasons - Right to be heard)
   (2007/C 69/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Willlem Aldershoff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the 2003 appraisal procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the career development report of the applicant, Mr Willem Aldershoff, for the 2003 appraisal procedure.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case T-420/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Wine in Black — Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black)
   (Case T-420/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Wine in Black - Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.L. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA and Wine in Black GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-71/06: Order of the President of the Court of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-71/06) (1)

   (2007/C 95/68)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-316/13: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Reconstitution of stocks of bluefin tuna — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Pappalardo and Others v Commission
      (Case T-316/13) (1)

      ((Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Reconstitution of stocks of bluefin tuna - Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
      (2016/C 211/53)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo (Cetara, Italy), Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop. (Cetara), Fedemar Srl (Cetara), Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc (Catane, Italy), Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl (Cetara), Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC (Pescara, Italy) and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. (Pescara) (represented by: V. Cannizzaro and L. Caroli, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action for compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo, Pescatori La Tonnara Soc. coop., Fedemar Srl, Testa Giuseppe E C. Snc, Pescatori San Pietro Apostolo Srl, Camplone Arnaldo & C. Snc di Camplone Arnaldo EC and Valentino Pesca Sas di Camplone Arnaldo & C. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case 74/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret): SmithKline Beecham plc v Lægemiddelstyrelsen (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Abridged procedure — Essentially similar products — Active substance in different forms of salt — Additional documentation)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case 74/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret): SmithKline Beecham plc v Lægemiddelstyrelsen (1)

   (Medicinal products - Marketing authorisation - Abridged procedure - Essentially similar products - Active substance in different forms of salt - Additional documentation)
   (2005/C 57/12)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case 74/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 14 February 2003, received at the Court on 19 February 2003, in the proceedings between SmithKline Beecham plc and Lægemiddelstyrelsen, interveners: Synthon BV and Genthon BV – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, as amended by Council Directives 87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986, 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989 and 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993, must be interpreted as not preventing an application for marketing authorisation in respect of a medicinal product from being handled under the abridged procedure under that provision where that product contains the same therapeutic moiety as the reference product but combined with another salt.

               2.

               In support of an application under Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65 as amended, an applicant may, either spontaneously or at the request of the competent authority of a Member State, supply additional documentation in the form of certain pharmacological and toxicological tests or clinical trials in order to demonstrate that his product is essentially similar to the reference product.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case C-86/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2017 by Redpur GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15, Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/16

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2017 by Redpur GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15, Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-86/17 P)
   (2017/C 213/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Redpur GmbH (represented by: S. Schiller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Redwell Manufaktur GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment of 15 December 2016 in Case T-227/15 and reject the opposition;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in these proceedings;

               —

               order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the present appellant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      Applicant for an EU trade mark: Appellant

      EU trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Redpur’ for goods in Class 11 — EU trade mark registration application No 10 934 305

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Other party to the proceedings

      Marks or signs cited in the opposition proceedings: EU word and figurative mark No 004769717 ‘redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN’ for goods in Class 11; Austrian word mark with registration No 232549 ‘Redwell’ for goods in Class 11; International word mark (WIPO) with registration No 914971, ‘Redwell’ for goods in Class 11 and Company Names in Austria ‘REDWELL Manufaktur GmbH’ for heating systems and room heaters, in particular infrared heating and infrared heating systems

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-375/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza
   (Case C-375/14)
   2014/C 372/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Frosinone

      Party to the main proceedings

   Rosaria Laezza

      Question referred

   Are Article 49 and follows. and Article 56 and follows. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as also expanded upon by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in Case C-72/10, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the right to use the tangible and intangible assets constituting the network for managing and collecting bets upon cessation of that activity due to the expiry of the relevant licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case T-222/95: Antonio Angelini v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Change of place of employment - Return to the place of original employment - Installation allowance)

text:
C 41/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.2.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Luxembourg care of Jean-Pascal Lange, 40 Rue de la Syre,
                        (First Chamber)                              Uebersyren, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Julian Currall and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð
                    of 18 December 1997                              application, first, for annulment of the two decisions of
                                                                     the Commission published in Administrative Notices
in Case T-90/95: Walter Gill v. Commission of the
                                                                     Nos 852 of 2 September 1994 and 859 of 8 September
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                     1994, on the ground that the applicant's name was not
(Officials Ð Medical examinations Ð Failure to                       included in those notices on the list of officials considered
communicate information on state of health Ð Right to                the most deserving of promotion to Grade LA 4 in 1994
                keep his state of health secret)                     or on the list of officials actually promoted to grade LA 4
                                                                     in 1994, second, for annulment of the decision of the
                          (98/C 41/41)                               Commission of 3 April 1995 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                     complaint and, third, for an order requiring the defendant
               (Language of the case: French)                        to pay the sum of Bfrs 100 000 by way of compensation
                                                                     for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the
                                                                     irregularity of the promotion procedure Ð the Court of
In Case T-90/95: Walter Gill, former official of the                 First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-
Commission of the European Communities, represented                  Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                    J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Julian Curall and Jean-Luc Fagnart)             1. dismisses the action;
Ð application for reparation for the harm suffered by the
applicant as a result of the service-related fault allegedly
committed by the defendant's administration Ð the Court              2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,                (1) OJ C 248, 23.9.1995.
the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. The applicant shall bear the costs of the expert.                                        (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
(1) OJ C 137, 3.6.1995.
                                                                     in Case T-222/95: Antonio Angelini v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Change of place of employment Ð Return to
                                                                     the place of original employment Ð Installation
                                                                                allowance)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     (98/C 41/43)
                    of 18 December 1997
in Case T-142/95: Jean-Louis Delvaux v. Commission of                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Promotion Ð Comparative examination of
the merits Ð Staff report Ð Statement of reasons Ð                   In Case T-222/95: Antonio Angelini, an official of the
Identical career conditions Ð Discrimination on grounds              Commission of the European Communities, posted to the
                         of nationality)                             Ispra establishment of the Joint Research Centre,
                                                                     represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with the
                          (98/C 41/42)                               right of audience before the Court of Cassation of the
                                                                     Italian Republic, with an address for service in
               (Language of the case: French)                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
                                                                     Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
In Case T-142/95: Jean-Louis Delvaux, an official of the             for annulment of the decision of the Commission to refuse
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  to pay to the applicant an installation allowance upon the
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented by Nicolas                latter's return to his original place of employment, after a
LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         period of employment outwith his institution Ð the Court
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 41/21
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,            2. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                    amount of the allowance provided for by Article 5(3)
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,                    of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, together with
the operative part of which is as follows:                               interest at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date
                                                                         of the application.
1. The decision of the Commission, communicated by
     note of 17 May 1995, denying payment to the                     3. The remainder of the application is dismissed.
     applicant of the installation allowance is annulled.
2. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the             4. The Commission shall bear its own costs and one half
     amount of the allowance provided for in Article 5(3)                of the costs of the applicant. The applicant shall bear
     of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, together with                one half of his own costs.
     interest at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date
     of the application.                                             (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
3. The Commission shall bear its own expenses.
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                                                                     Action brought on 26 November 1997 by Alitalia against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-296/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/45)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     of 18 December 1997
in Case T-57/96: Livio Costantini v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
(Officials Ð Change of place of employment Ð Return to               Instance of the European Communities on 26 November
the place of original employment Ð Installation allowance            1997 by Alitalia, represented by Antonio Tizzano and
                Ð Daily subsistence allowance)                       Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, Mario Siragusa,
                          (98/C 41/44)                               of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati Sforzolini, of the
                                                                     Bologna Bar, Matteo Bay, of the Milan Bar, and Matteo
                                                                     Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, with an address for service in
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger Hoss &
                                                                     Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
In Case T-57/96: Livio Costantini, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, posted to the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
establishment at Ispra of the Joint Research Centre,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, Avvocato with the
right of audience before the Court of Cassation of the               Ð annul in its entirety the Commission's decision of
Italian Republic, with an address for service in                         15 July 1997 relating to Alitalia's recapitalisation, or
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
                                                                     In the alternative:
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission refusing
to pay to the applicant an installation allowance and a
daily subsistence allowance upon the latter's return to his
original place of employment after a period of                       Ð annul the conditions for granting the aid referred to in
employment outwith his institution Ð the Court of First                  Article 1(2) to (8) of the Decision,
Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A.
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on           Ð annul also the condition requiring Alitalia to bear the
18 December 1997, the operative part of which is as                      costs of the early retirement scheme provided for by
follows:                                                                 Decree Law No 546/1996,
1. The decision of the Commission refusing the applicant             Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
     payment of the installation allowance is annulled.                  Alitalia in the course of these proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-423/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße): Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße (Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)

text:
C 289/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             fact that the cutting operations take place in the establishment
                                                                                where the meat is obtained.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                         of 16 October 2003
in Case C-423/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße):
Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections
     and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)                                                  (Fourth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 289/06)                                                             of 16 October 2003
                    (Language of the case: German)                            in Case C-455/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directive 96/98/EC — Marine equipment — Free movement
                                                                              of goods — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative
                                                                              restrictions — Obligation to be in possession of a certificate
                                                                              of conformity issued by a recognised national body — Non-
In Case C-423/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    recognition of tests carried out by bodies recognised in other
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße                                                   Member States)
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Emil Färber GmbH & Co. and Stadt
Neustadt/Weinstraße, on the interpretation of the second                                                 (2003/C 289/07)
paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Council Directive
85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC,
90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1985 L 32,
p. 14), as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
43/EC of 26 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Court (Sixth                                     in the European Court Reports)
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, V. Skouris
and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given              In Case C-455/01, Commission of the European Communities
a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                         (Agents: R. B. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
                                                                              (Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for
                                                                              a declaration that, by keeping in force legislation under which
1.    The second paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to                 products in respect of which there has not yet been full
      Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the                   harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels flying
      financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by             the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate of
      Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/                   conformity has been issued by a national body — so that in
      496/EEC, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive               some cases the right to market those products is enjoyed only
      96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be interpreted as meaning                by the grantee of the certificate — and by not recognising the
      that the reduction it lays down of the amounts of the fees              validity of tests carried out in accordance with international
      payable in respect of the health controls and inspections               standards by bodies recognised in the other Member States or
      connected with cutting operations applies also where the cutting        in States signatory to the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the
      plant and the establishment where the meat is obtained, which           European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), even where the
      are situated in the same place, belong to two different natural         relevant information is made available to the competent
      or legal persons.                                                       authority and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
                                                                              guarantees a degree of safety equivalent to that required for
2.    The extent of the reduction to be granted under the second              Italian products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Directive 85/              obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Fourth
      73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, depends             Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
      on the savings made as regards the salary and social security           President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
      costs of the inspection staff and the administrative costs incurred     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      in carrying out the controls and inspections as a result of the         given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-294/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation of passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances — Implementation, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances — Organisation of resources in good time to be able to ensure the operation of the flight after such circumstances have ended)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija
   (Case C-294/10) (1)

   (Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation of passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances - Implementation, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances - Organisation of resources in good time to be able to ensure the operation of the flight after such circumstances have ended)
   2011/C 194/09
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks

      Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Articles 5(3) and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Cancellation of a flight caused initially by air space closure because of problems with radar and aviation systems and then by expiry of the crew’s maximum permitted working time — Taking, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier, since it is obliged to implement all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to the possible occurrence of such circumstances. It must, consequently, provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end. However, that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring, as a ‘reasonable measure’, provision to be made, generally and without distinction, for a minimum reserve time applicable in the same way to all air carriers in all situations when extraordinary circumstances arise. The assessment of the ability of the air carrier to operate the programmed flight in its entirety in the new conditions resulting from the occurrence of those circumstances must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the length of the required reserve time does not result in the air carrier being led to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time. Article 6(1) of that regulation is not applicable in the context of such an assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case C-262/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou): Paraskevas Louloudakis v Elliniko Dimosio (Directive 83/182/EEC — Means of transport temporarily imported — Tax exemptions — Normal residence in a Member State — Fine for improperly importing exempt from tax — Principle of proportionality — Good faith)

text:
C 289/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         13.10.2001
of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski) —                  Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — appli-
application for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the           cation for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the
Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first                    Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first
subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC                 subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                  of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together                     of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together
with the information on each site required by the second                    with the information on each site required by the second
subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the Federal Republic of               subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, the French Republic has
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive           failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                        (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schint-              President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
gen, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger,                  and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
on 11 September 2001, in which it:                                          a judgment on 11 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within       1.    Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Commission, within
      the prescribed period, the list of sites mentioned in the first             the period prescribed, the list of sites mentioned in the first
      subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC                 subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
      of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and                  of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
      of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those             of wild fauna and flora, together with the information on those
      sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)                   sites required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)
      thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its           thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      obligations under that directive;                                           under that directive;
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear the costs.             2.    Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 July 2001
                        of 11 September 2001
                                                                            in Case C-262/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-220/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou): Paraskevas
                      ties v French Republic (1)                                           Louloudakis v Elliniko Dimosio (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Directive 83/182/EEC — Means of transport temporarily
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —                    imported — Tax exemptions — Normal residence in a
Conservation of wild fauna and flora — Article 4(1) — List                  Member State — Fine for improperly importing exempt from
                    of sites — Site information)                                   tax — Principle of proportionality — Good faith)
                           (2001/C 289/03)                                                              (2001/C 289/04)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-220/999: Commission of the European Communi-                      In Case C-262/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
ties (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French               EC from the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Greece),
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/3
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                     difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the
court between Paraskevas Louloudakis and Elliniko Dimosio                           offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of                          him.
28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for
certain means of transport temporarily imported into one
Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) — the                        (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rappor-
teur), President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it has ruled:
1.    Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain
      means of transport temporarily imported into one Member
      State from another must be interpreted as meaning that, where                                        of 12 July 2001
      a person has both personal and occupational ties in two
      Member States, his normal residence, determined in the context
      of an overall assessment by reference to all the relevant facts, is     in Joined Cases C-302/99 P and C-308/99 P: Commission
      that where the permanent centre of interests of that person is          of the European Communities v Télévision Française 1
      located; in the event that such an overall assessment does not                                         SA (TF1) (1)
      result in its determination, primacy must be given to personal
      ties.
                                                                              (Appeal — Inoperative plea — Challenge to the grounds of
                                                                              a judgment that has no effect on the operative part of the
                                                                                judgment — Liability for costs)
2.    National legislation which provides, in the event of infringement
      of the temporary importation arrangements laid down by                                              (2001/C 289/05)
      Directive 83/182, for a series of penalties including, in
      particular:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      —      fines set at a flat rate on the basis of the sole criterion of                        in the European Court Reports)
             the vehicle’s cubic capacity, without taking its age into
             account,
                                                                              In Joined Cases C-302/99 P and C-308/99 P: Commission
                                                                              of the European Communities (Agents: G. Marenco and
                                                                              K. Wiedner) and French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
                                                                              and F. Million), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
      —      increased duty which can amount to up to ten times the           R. Silva de Lapuerta) — appeal against the judgment of the
             taxes in question,                                               Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
                                                                              Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 June 1999 in Case
                                                                              T-17/96 TF1 v Commission [1999] ECR II-1757, seeking to
                                                                              have that judgment partially set aside, the other party to the
                                                                              proceedings being: Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1), established
      is compatible with the principle of proportionality only in so far      in Paris, France, (lawyers: G. Vandersanden, J.-P. Hordies and
      as it is made necessary by overriding requirements of enforcement       A. Maqua), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
      and prevention, when gravity of the infringement is taken into          President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris
      account.                                                                (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                              P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken,
                                                                              N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
                                                                              C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                              D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
3.    In proceedings concerning infringements relating to temporary           given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it:
      importation of certain means of transport, neither Directive
      83/182 nor other rules of Community law prevent its being
                                                                              1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      excluded that ignorance of the applicable rules should lead to
      automatic exoneration from all penalties. None the less, where
      determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to          2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Case C-302/99 P;


title: Case T-546/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/15

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
   (Case T-546/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure - Acts inseparable from the contract - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 250/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and B. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 2 August 2011 confirming the conclusions of the financial audit concerning the financial statements declared by Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, concerning four contracts concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing Technion of the next steps in the procedure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case F-60/08: Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Z v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/63

         Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Z v Commission
   (Case F-60/08)
   (2008/C 223/120)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Z (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, E. Marchal)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Commission decision to apply to the applicant, following to the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 7 September 2007 fixing the conditions of employment of the applicant as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks in so far as they provide for the application of the proviso laid down in Article 100 of the CEOS;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-459/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14 Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) v Council

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/11

         Appeal brought on 28 August 2015 by Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14 Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) v Council
   (Case C-459/15 P)
   (2015/C 346/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company (IOEC) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 June 2015 in Case T-95/14;

               —

               give final judgment in the proceedings by granting the form of order sought by the applicant, now the appellant, at first instance; that is to say, annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP (1) of 15 November 2013 and Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 (2) of 15 November 2013 in so far as they refer to, or could affect, IOEC, and remove its name from the respective annexes to those provisions;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

      Error of law, in so far as the judgment erroneously states that the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons and did not infringe the right to an effective remedy.

      Error of law, in that the judgment states that the measures against the appellant are based on evidence, when in reality they lack any factual basis and the judgment is based on presumptions. This also gave rise to a misuse of powers and infringement of the applicable legal provisions and of the principle of equal treatment.

      Error of law, in that the judgment erroneously states that IOEC’s property rights and the principle of proportionality were respected.

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3).


title: Case C-161/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy — Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish — Failure to notify)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-161/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy - Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish - Failure to notify)
   (2006/C 331/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, G. Aiello and D. Del Grazio, lawyers)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Failure to notify the data concerning the species and quantities of fish caught
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to notify the data referred to in Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy for 1999 and 2000, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Case T-222/07 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2007 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 25 April 2007 in Case F-59/06, Kerstens v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/41

         Appeal brought on 25 June 2007 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 25 April 2007 in Case F-59/06, Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-222/07 P)
   (2007/C 199/78)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Petrus J. F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the contested order;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal before another chamber;

               —

               award costs as of right.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing as clearly inadmissible the action whereby he sought the annulment of, first, his career development report for 2004 and, second, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting his complaint against that career development report.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant raises three pleas in law.
   The first alleges infringement of Article 7(1) and (3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, infringement of Article 20 of that Statute, and procedural irregularity adversely affecting the interests of the applicant. He argues that recourse to Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal, on the basis of which the contested order was made, could not take place after two exchanges of memoranda and an exchange of notes of observations, that is to say where the ordinary procedure applied. In those circumstances, the applicant argues, the Court could not rule on inadmissibility before the oral procedure.
   The second plea, put forward in the alternative, alleges infringement of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and irregularity in the procedure following from it. In the applicant's submission, the contested order could not have been issued on the basis of that provision without following the procedure and in particular without the oral phase, given that the advocate general had not been heard and the inadmissibility claimed was not obvious.
   The third plea, raised further in the alternative, alleges infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, in that the Civil Service Tribunal impliedly held that one of the annexes to the rejoinder constituted proof that the procedure in question was inadmissible, before the applicant had even had a chance to give explanations concerning that document.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — National list of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance — Conservation measures)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-117/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia (1)

   (Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - National list of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance - Conservation measures)
   (2005/C 57/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-117/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by order of 17 December 2002, received at the Court on 18 March 2003, in the proceedings between Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia – the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   On a proper construction of Article 4(5) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the protective measures prescribed in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of that directive are required only as regards sites which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the directive, are on the list of sites selected as sites of Community importance adopted by the Commission of the European Communities in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the directive.
   In the case of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance which are included in the national lists transmitted to the Commission and, in particular, sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, the Member States are, by virtue of Directive 92/43, required to take protective measures that are appropriate, from the point of view of the directive's conservation objective, for the purpose of safeguarding the relevant ecological interest which those sites have at national level.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.