title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Sonasa, Sociedade Nacional de Segurança, Lda. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-126/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/33
ordinarily regarded as highly material to market                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
definition. It adopted a highly selective approach to other
evidence on market definition and dominance, and placed
inordinate weight on untested or subjective views and on
evidence of factors having limited probative value.                 The applicant challenges the Commission's decision
Furthermore, the Commission invoked an irrelevant legal             reducing the amount granted for a training programme
provision, namely Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )             undertaken by it in 1989 .
No 4064/89 ( OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p. 1 ), in
analysing TCCC's relationship to CCE, and literally
ignored uncontested testimony by a renowned authority
on the applicable corporate governance standards supplied           In support of its claim the applicant alleges breach of the
by US law.                                                          principles of stability, legal certainty and legitimate
                                                                    expectation, together with breach of the principle of
                                                                    proper administration of justice and of the duty of care .
                                                                    The contested decision is vitiated by a lack of an adequate
The applicant states in this regard that TCCC does not              statement of reasons and abuse of rights on the ground of
own, or have the right to use, any of CCE's assets; it does         venire contra factum proprium, in view of the manifest
not own or control a majority shareholding in CCE, has              breach of the protected rights of individuals — acquired
no preferential shares giving it a majority of the voting           rights — legal certainty and legitimate expectations .
rights in CCE, has no veto rights, has no right to appoint
any members of CCE's board, and has no agreement with
other shareholders to confer majority voting power or               In particular, following approval for the training project to
permit the appointment of directors.                                be organized by the applicant, DAFSE considered that the
                                                                    applicant was not complying with the rule that the hours
                                                                    timetabled for practical training cannot exceed those for
                                                                    theory training. This finding was based on the fact that,
                                                                    despite the applicant having submitted identical timetables
                                                                    for the theory training ( 200 hours ) and the practical
                                                                    training ( 200 hours ), DAFSE doubted whether the 'theory
                                                                    training sessions' consisted of theory at all . Moreover, the
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Sonasa, Sociedade                theory sessions provided in the training project at issue
Nacional de Segurança, Lda. against the Commission of               were absolutely identical with those provided in the
                 the European Communities                           training project undertaken the previous year ( 1988 ),
                                                                    which neither DAFSE nor the Commission had challenged,
                       ( Case T-126/97)                             despite its having been observed by DAFSE inspectors .
                         ( 97/C 199/80 )
                                                                    The applicant points out the fact that, two years after the
                                                                    submission of the claim for payment of the outstanding
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    balance, the applicant was informed by DAFSE that there
                                                                    was to be a factual and accounting verification of the
                                                                    projects undertaken in the framework of the procedure
                                                                    relating to the ESF contributions for 1989 . However, only
An action against the Commission of the European                    two years after that announcement and, therefore, four
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    years after the submission of the claim for payment of the
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
                                                                    outstanding balance, the applicant was made aware of an
by Sonasa, Sociedade Nacional de Segurança, Lda ., having           audit report which considered ineligible, among other
its registered office at Av. Infante D. Henrique, Lote 328         expenditure which is not considered here, expenditure in
C, Cabo Ruivo, 1800 Lisboa, represented by Dr Nuno
                                                                    respect of the theory sessions, thus further reducing the
Morais Sarmento, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for             total amount of the contributions from the ESF and the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen,             OSS from Esc 27 841 049 ( total expenditure incurred ) to
13 Rue Aldringen, Luxembourg.                                       Esc 15 591 329 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant now finds itself, nearly seven years after the
                                                                    final payment claim and after all the advances paid by
                                                                    DAFSE and the Commission, in an unjustly uncertain
                                                                    situation inasmuch as the Commission gave rise to an
— annul        Commission      Decision  C(96 )    3451    of       expectation that it would pay the outstanding balance
     16 December 1996,                                              which it now refuses to do .
— order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 22 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-365/97)

text:
C 387/8               fENl                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         20 . 12 . 97
' 1 . 'Taxable    person'    shall mean   any    person   who        under the various national legal systems . Any other
      independently carries out in any place any economic            interpretation would encroach upon the uniform
      activity specified in paragraph 2 whatever the purpose         application of Community law.
      or results of that activity.
                                                                     Interpreted objectively, the concept of ' supplying services'
  2 . The economic activities referred to in paragraph 1             encompasses services supplied to users by the operators of
      shall comprise all activities of producers traders and         a road or other element of infrastructure used for the
      persons supplying services      .). The exploitation of        transport of goods or persons. This interpretation has
      tangible or intangible property for the purpose of             always been accepted by a number of Member States
      obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis               notably Spain and Italy which levy VAT on all tolls paid
      shall also be considered an economic activity '.               for the use of motorways and other elements of road
      ( Emphasis added )                                             infrastructure . The exemption from VAT granted by
                                                                     certain Member States including the United Kingdom
                                                                     therefore throws out of balance not only the operation of
The Commission submits that one example of 'the                      the common system of value added tax but also the
exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the              contributions to the Communities' own resources by the
purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing                Member States .
 basis' is operating a road and charging a toll for its use .
As a result, such operations are an economic activity and
 hence the person carrying them out is a taxable person for          The absence of VAT on road tolls is incompatible with
the purposes of the Sixth VAT Directive .                            Community rules on the collection of the Communities'
                                                                     own resources .
The Commission submits that a transaction which falls
 under the scope of the Sixth VAT Directive is subject to            The Commission submits that if road tolls are subject to
 VAT Svhatever the purpose or results of that activity' as           VAT, it follows that a proportion of the VAT concerned
 stated in Article 4 paragraph 1 of the Directive .
                                                                     should have been taken into account as part of the United
                                                                     Kingdom's contribution to the own resources of the
                                                                     Communities .
 In particular, the Commission submits that operating
 motorways, inland waterways and port facilities is an
 economic activity.                                                  (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                         turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                         uniform basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
 The case-law of the Court makes it clear that a supply of
 services is subject to VAT when the service in question is
 provided in return for payment, the taxable base being
 everything which makes up the consideration given in
 return for that service . As the Court has pointed out there
 must be 'a direct link between the service rendered and
 the consideration received '.
                                                                     Action brought on 22 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
 With regard to tolls paid for the use of a road there is                                     ( Case C-365/97)
 incontestably a direct link between the service rendered
 and the consideration received in exchange, if payment is                                      ( 97/C 387/13 )
 levied each time a vehicle is allowed to use the road .
 The fact that a private operator carries out activities             An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
 which contribute to the general good does not prevent               the Court of Justice on 22 October 1997 by the
 those activities being subject to VAT.                               Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                      by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
                                                                      assisted by Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an
 Community definition
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                      Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
 The Sixth VAT Directive imposes VAT on any 'economic
 activity' of which 'supplying services' is one category. In          The applicant claims that the Court should:
 this context the concepts of ' supplying services' and
 'economic activity' for the purposes of the Sixth VAT
 Directive must be interpreted objectively on the basis of            — Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
 the economic reality of the transaction and irrespective of              obligations under the EC Treaty in that, with regard to
 the manner in which the transaction may be classified                    the S. Rocco riverbed,
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 387/9
     — it has not adopted the necessary measures to                    to ensure that the waste is disposed of without
          ensure that waste is disposed of without                     endangering human health and without harming the
          endangering human health and without harming                 environment, and in particular without risk to water, air,
          the environment, and in particular without risk to           soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance
          water, air, soil and plants and animals, without             through noise or odours, and without adversely affecting
          causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and              the countryside or places of special interest.
          without adversely affecting the countryside or
          places of special interest, in breach of Article 4 of
          Directive 75/442/EEC (') ( or Article 4 of Directive         The Commission also considers that the competent
          75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91 / 156/                 authorities designated in accordance with Article 5 of the
          EC (2 ), which substantially reproduces the                  directive as originally worded (Article 6 of the amended
          provisions thereof),                                         directive ) have not fulfilled their obligations concerning
                                                                       the organization, authorization and supervision of waste
                                                                        disposal operations in the area in question, as is apparent
     — the competent authorities designated in accordance               from the continuing poor state of the S. Rocco valley.
          with Article       5 of Directive 75/442/EEC        (or
          Article 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended
           by Directive 91 /156/EC, which substantially
           reproduces the provisions thereof) have not                  The Commission also concludes that, in so far as waste
           fulfilled their obligations concerning the                   continues to be tipped into the riverbed in question, the
           organization, authorization and supervision of               competent authorities have failed to supervise the
           waste disposal operations in the area in question,           undertakings transporting, collecting, storing, tipping or
           in breach of Article 5 of Directive 75/442/EEC ( or          treating their own waste and that of third parties, in
           Article 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by              breach of the obligations imposed by Article 10 of
           Directive 91 / 156/EC ),                                     Directive 75/442/EEC as originally worded (or Article 13
                                                                        of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended ).
     — the competent authorities have not fulfilled
           their obligation of supervising undertakings                 As regards, finally, the existence of a pit used for fly
           transporting, collecting, storing, tipping or treating       tipping, the Commission, although aware of the criminal
           their own waste and those which collect or                    proceedings instituted against the concessionaire, has
           transport waste on behalf of third parties, in                never been informed of the progress of those proceedings.
            breach of Article 10 of Directive 75/442/EEC (or
            Article 13 of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by
                                                                         (') OJ L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 47; EE 15 F1 p . 129 .
            Directive      91 /156/EC,    which      substantially       ( 2 ) OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
            reproduces the provisions thereof),
      — it has not taken the necessary measures to ensure
            that, with regard to a pit in the tufa located in the
            S. Rocco riverbed area, used for fly tipping in the
            past, the concessionaire responsible for that pit has
            the waste handled by a private or public waste               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
            collector or by a disposal undertaking, in breach             Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October
            of the first indent of Article 7 of Directive 75/442/         1997 in the case of ( 1 ) The Polo/Lauren Company LP and
            EEC ( or the first indent of Article 8 of Directive               ( 2 ) Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz, trading as Jeans & More
             75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91 /156/EC,                                             Case C-370/97 )
             which substantially reproduces the provisions
             thereof),                                                                                ( 97/C 387/14 )
 — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate
                                                                           of the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court), Austria, of
                                                                           7 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      on 27 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                            of ( 1 ) The Polo/Lauren Company LP and ( 2 ) Poloco SA v.
                                                                           Jiirgen Denz, trading as Jeans & More, on the following
  With regard to the pollution caused by the tipping of                     questions :
  waste from the area upstream of the S. Rocco valley, the
  Commission considers that the Italian authorities have
  infringed Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC as originally                 Is Article 7 ( 1 ) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
  worded (Article 4 of the amended directive ) in that they                 of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
  have failed to adopt, in that area , all the measures needed               Member States relating to trade marks ( OJ L 40, 11 . 12 .


title: Appeal brought on 20 February 1997 by the French Republic against the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94 between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. and the Commission of the European Communities supported by the United Kingdom (Case C-73/97 P)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 131 /5
          proceedings brought by Givenchy and pending                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo
          before a national court, in which the question of             Social No 1 , Pontevedra, by order of that court of
          the validity of Parfums Givenchy SA's selective               28 January 1997 in the case of Mercedes Gomez Montana
          distribution system was expressly raised,                     v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles
                                                                                Espaftoles (Renfe)
     — by an inaccurate assessment of the effect of the                                            ( Case C-74/97)
          contested decision on the competitive situation and
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 11 )
          of the importance of that criterion when deciding
          whether a person is individually concerned, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     — because the finding that Kruidvat's action was                   European Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social
          inadmissible deprives it of full and effective legal          ( Social Court) No 1 , Pontevedra, of 28 January 1997,
          protection .                                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 20 February
                                                                        1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mercedes
                                                                        Gomez Montana v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de
— Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                         Ferrocarriles Espanoles ( Renfe ) on the following question .
                                                                        Does Directive 77/187/EEC ( 1 ) of 14 February 1977 cover
                                                                        circumstances in which the termination of a contract with
                                                                        a cleaning company results in the dismissal of the worker
                                                                        employed by the contractor and the cleaning is taken over
Appeal brought on 20 February 1997 by the French                        by the principal, a rail transport undertaking, using its
Republic against the judgment delivered on 11 December                  own employees ?
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94                    (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
& Co. and the Commission of the European Communities
                supported by the United Kingdom
                        ( Case C-73/97 P )
                           ( 97/C 131 / 10 )                            Action brought on 19 February 1997 by Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December                                            ( Case C-75/97)
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 12 )
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
8c Co. and the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European
supported by the United Kingdom, was brought before the                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         the European Communities on 19 February 1997 by the
20 February 1997 by the French Republic, represented by                 Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Gerwin van Gerven
Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal , acting as agents,             and Koen Coppenholle, of the Brussels Bar, with an
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Embassy, 9 boulevard Prince Henri .                                     Freddy Brausch, 11 rue Goethe .
                                                                        The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should :
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare the application for annulment of Decision
— partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First                     SG(96 ) 4080 final of 4 December 1996 , notified by
     Instance of 11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 in so                      letter S/11511 of 10 December 1996 concerning
     far as that judgment dismissed the objection of                         measures of aid by the Belgian Government in the
                                                                             framework of the Maribel II/III scheme admissible and
     inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
                                                                             well founded, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In holding that the applicant undertakings are directly and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
individually concerned by the provisions of Article 1 of                — Infringement of Articles 92 and 1 90 of the EC Treaty:
the contested Regulation, the Court of First Instance failed
to take account of either the general scope or the                      — Maribel II/III does not constitute aid
 legislative character of the Regulation which has legal
effects on all of the operators in categories A and B. The                   The Commission refers to the statement in the Belgian
applicants adduced nothing to distinguish them from other                    legislation that the measure is applied to undertakings
category A operators and justify their being regarded as                     'which are exposed to international competition'. The
 individually concerned by the Regulation .                                  Maribel II/III scheme does not, however, benefit only
                                                                             undertakings which actively engage in export; nor is it
                                                                             true that the Maribel II/III scheme benefits only sectors


title: Case T-143/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union (Dumping — Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India — Regulation terminating an interim review — Minimum import price undertakings — Determination of the export price — Application of a methodology different from that used in the initial investigation — Choice of legal basis — Article 2(8) and (9) and Article 11(3) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-143/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India - Regulation terminating an interim review - Minimum import price undertakings - Determination of the export price - Application of a methodology different from that used in the initial investigation - Choice of legal basis - Article 2(8) and (9) and Article 11(3) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
   2010/C 11/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MTZ Polyfilms Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and K. Talabér-Ricz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India, to the extent that it imposes an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of MTZ Polyfilms and orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif, Saint-Denis de la Réunion, by judgment of that court of 5 June 1996 in the case of Paul Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil Régional de la Réunion (Case C-212/96)

text:
No C 269/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14 . 9 . 96
The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive              for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des
in question into national law expired on 31 March 1994 ,                  Girondins .
but the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
necessary to incorporate it fully into the Greek legal system,            The applicant claims that the Court should :
nor notified the Commission of any such measures .
                                                                          — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 822/96 of
(') OJ No L 179 , 22 . 7 . 1993 , p . 5 .                                        3 May 1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1970 ( III ), p. 840 .          additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas
                                                                                during the second quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical
                                                                                storms Iris , Luis and Marilyn ('),
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Administratif, Saint-Denis de la Reunion, by judgment of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that court of 5 June 1996 in the case of Paul
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil Regional de la Reunion                   in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                           ( Case C-212/96 )
                              ( 96/C 269/08 )                             (') OJ No L 111 , 4 . 5 . 1996 , p . 7 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 , p . 11 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Saint-Denis de la
Reunion , of 5 June 1996 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Paul Chevassus-Marche against Conseil Regional de
                                                                          Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the
la Reunion on the following questions :
                                                                           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Case C-218/96 )
 1 . Is Council Decision 8 9/6 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) authorizing the                                           ( 96/C 269/ 10 )
       maintenance of dock dues payable on imported
       products and on goods produced by undertakings                     An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
       located in an overseas departement consistent with the
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       Treaty and , specifically, with Articles 9 , 12 and 13             26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
       thereof, in that it allows the possibility of exemptions for
                                                                          Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
       local undertakings on the sole condition that they
                                                                          Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
       contribute to the promotion or maintenance of an                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
       economic activity ?
                                                                          Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service , Wagner Centre ,
2 . If so , may Decision 89/688/EEC be regarded , in the light            Kirchberg.
       of the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty of
       Rome , as permitting fiscal differentiation with a view to         The applicant claims that the Court should :
       achieving economic objectives which are consistent with
       the requirements of the Treaty and of secondary                    — declare that, by not adopting the laws , regulations and
       legislation, where such differentiation is justified by the               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       particular economic conditions in the overseas                            Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC (') of 25 November
       departements ?                                                            1 993 laying down Annex VII D , containing information
                                                                                required for the technical dossier referred to in Article 12
                                                                                of the     seventh    amendment       of Council     Directive
 (') OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 46 .
                                                                                67/548/EEC (2 ), or by not communicating those
                                                                                measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive ,
                                                                          — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
 Action brought on 26 June 1 996 by the Kingdom of Belgium
     against the Commission of the European Communities                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( Case C-2 17/96 )
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                               ( 96/C 269/09 )                             in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive
                                                                           expired on 31 December 1993 .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                (') OJ No L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
 European Communities on 26 June 1996 by the Kingdom of                    ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
 Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Adviseur-Generaal in                 (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , External Trade and
 Development Cooperation , acting as Agent, with an address


title: Case C-185/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 2 April 2007 — Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS) v West Tankers Inc.

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 2 April 2007 — Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS) v West Tankers Inc.
   (Case C-185/07)
   (2007/C 155/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS)

      Defendant: West Tankers Inc.
   Question referred
   Is it consistent with EC Regulation 44/2001 (1) for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings in another Member State on the ground that such proceedings are in breach of an arbitration agreement?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-609/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer information and protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Labelling and presentation of those foods — Article 10(2) — Temporal application — Article 28(5) and (6) — Transitional measures)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ehrmann AG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
   (Case C-609/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer information and protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Labelling and presentation of those foods - Article 10(2) - Temporal application - Article 28(5) and (6) - Transitional measures))
   2014/C 175/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ehrmann AG

      Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 10(1) and (2), 28(5) and 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010 (OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16) — Health claims — Specific conditions — Temporal application

      Operative part of the judgment

   Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligations to provide information laid down in Article 10(2) of that regulation were already in force in 2010 as regards health claims that were not prohibited on the basis of Article 10(1), read in conjunction with Article 28(5) and (6) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-339/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 94/15/EC and 94/51/EC)

text:
10.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 312/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                     qualifications referred to in Article 3 of that Directive
                                                                           must first be obtained.
                        of 16 July 1998
in Case C-93/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              2. The nature of the activities which a trainee must
the Cour d'Arbitrage of Belgium): FeÂdeÂration Belge des                   pursue in the course of his specific training in general
Chambres Syndicales de MeÂdecins ASBL v. Flemish                           medical practice in implementation of Article 31(1)(d)
Government, Government of the French Community,                            of Directive 93/16/EEC does not necessarily imply
                    Council of Ministers (1)                               that he should have obtained a diploma, certificate or
                                                                           other evidence of formal qualifications referred to in
(Directive 93/16/EEC Ð Specific training in general                        Article 3 before starting such training. It is for the
                 medical practice Ð Article 31)                            Member States to determine whether, and if so to
                         (98/C 312/01)                                     what extent, the participation of a person undergoing
                                                                           training in general medical practice in the professional
                                                                           activities and responsibilities of the persons with
                 (Language of the case: French)                            whom he works in the course of his training means
                                                                           that he should hold the diploma, certificate or other
                                                                           evidence of formal qualifications referred to in
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                           Article 3 of that Directive.
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
In Case C-93/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Arbitrage of Belgium
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between FeÂdeÂration Belge des Chambres Syndi-
cales de MeÂdecins ASBL and Flemish Government,
Government of the French Community, Council of                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Ministers Ð on the interpretation of Article 31 of Council                                   (Sixth Chamber)
Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                                       of 16 July 1998
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                          in Case C-339/97: Commission of the European
qualifications (OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court                        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; G.                  Failure to transpose Directives 94/15/EC and 94/51/EC)
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                              (98/C 312/02)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which
it has ruled:                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
1. Article 31(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of                            published in the European Court Reports)
     doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas,
     certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications         In Case C-339/97: Commission of the European
     does not make access to specific training in general             Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Grand Duchy
     medical practice subject to the condition that a                 of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) Ð application for
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.10.98
a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the                  Smanor and Others v. Commission [1997] ECR II-1081,
prescribed      periods,     the    laws,   regulations     and      seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Ð                 proceedings being Commission of the European
Commission Directive 94/15/EC of 15 April 1994                       Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier
adapting to technical progress for the first time Council            Couvert-CasteÂra) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the              composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ L 103,             P. J. G. Kapteyn and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
22.4.1994, p. 20) and Ð Commission Directive 94/51/EC                A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress                    order on 9 July 1998, the operative part of which is as
Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of                 follows:
genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ L 297,
18.11.1994, p. 29), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                1. The appeal is dismissed.
failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives Ð the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,                2. The appellants shall pay the costs.
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has            (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it:
1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
     period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission
     Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
     technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on
     the contained use of genetically modified micro-                                       (Third Chamber)
     organisms, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                                            of 14 July 1998
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
     Directive;                                                      in Case C-399/97: Glasoltherm SARL v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, EÂlectriciteÂ de France and
2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                                  HLM Colomiers Habitat SA' (1)
     costs.                                                                        (Inadmissibility of the application)
                                                                                (98/C 312/04)
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     In Case C-399/97: Glasoltherm SARL, in liquidation,
                          of 9 July 1998                             established at Orsay (France), represented by Pascal
in Case C-317/97 P: Smanor SA and Hubert SeÂgaud                     Penciolelli, of the EÂvry Bar, whose address is at 18 Avenue
and Monique SeÂgaud v. Commission of the European                    de la LibeÂration, 91130 Ris-Orangis (France), v.
                         Communities (1)                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier Couvert-Castera,
(Order of the Court of First Instance Ð Failure to initiate          assisted by Nicole Coutrelis), EÂlectriciteÂ de France,
infringement proceedings Ð Action for a declaration of               established in Paris, and HLM Colomiers Habitat SA',
failure to act and for damages Ð Appeal Ð Manifest                   established at Colomiers (France) Ð the Court (Third
                         inadmissibility)                            Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
                          (98/C 312/03)                              President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P.
                                                                     Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; R.
                (Language of the case: French)                       Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 14 July 1998, the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   1. The action is inadmissible.
In Case C-317/97 P: Smanor SA, a company incorporated                2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
under French law, established at Saint-Martin-d'EÂcublei,
France, and Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud, residing
at Saint-Martin-d'EÂcublei, represented by Laurence                  3. Glasoltherm SARL in liquidation shall pay the costs.
Roques, of the Val-de-Marne Bar, 7-9 Rue du GeÂneÂral de
Larminat, CreÂteil, France Ð appeal against the order of             (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case T-201/96


title: Case T-463/11: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/23

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)
   (Case T-463/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 38/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dectane GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by K. Klüpfel, then by K. Klüpfel and D. Botis, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. (Lippstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Schnekenbühl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2011 (Case R 1231/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. and Dectane GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-6/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/46/EC — Company law Annual and consolidated accounts of companies — Failure to transpose or to communicate national transposition measures)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-6/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/46/EC - Company law Annual and consolidated accounts of companies - Failure to transpose or to communicate national transposition measures)
   2010/C 246/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.


20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/21
The reduced rate for medicaments reimbursable by the                       Removal from the register of Case C-84/97 (1)
social security was applicable on 1 January 1991 but does                                  (1999/C 48/36)
not comply with Community law.
                                                                    By order of 27 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
Such a rate specifically for reimbursable medicaments,              European Communities has ordered the removal from the
whereas another rate is applicable to other medicaments,            register of Case C-84/97 (reference for a preliminary
is contrary to the principle of uniformity of the tax in            ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino):
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive.                            Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Grafoplast
                                                                    SpA.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
That specific rate is not, as the French Government
contends, based on objective criteria but on the legal
status of the products in question. Medicaments
reimbursable by the social security are not intrinsically
different from other medicaments.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-305/96 (1)
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/37)
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                    register of Case C-305/96: United Kingdom and Northern
                                                                    Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities.
      Removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (1)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                        (1999/C 48/34)
By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (Reference for                 Removal from the register of Case C-332/97 (1)
a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Sarclad
                                                                                (1999/C 48/38)
International Ltd v. Bundesamt für Finanzen.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.                                             By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-332/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-178/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/35)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-367/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/39)
By order of 23 October 1998, the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
Case C-178/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-367/97: Commission
Stefano Serbini v. Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero.
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the
                                                                    Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2004 in Case T-356/02: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier figurative mark including the verbal element ‘Krafft’ — Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 6 October 2004
   in Case T-356/02: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier figurative mark including the verbal element ‘Krafft’ - Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   (2004/C 314/44)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-356/02: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany), represented by U. Sander, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. Apostolakis and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal and intervener before the Court of First Instance being Krafft, SA, established in Andoain (Spain), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer — ACTION seeking the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2002 (Joined Cases R 506/2000-4 and R 581/2000-4) in opposition proceedings between Krafft, SA, and Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 September 2002 (Joined Cases R 506/2000-4 and R 581/2000-4) in so far as it allowed the intervener's appeal before the Board of Appeal concerning the goods ‘industrial oils and greases; lubricants; fuels (including motor spirit) and illuminants’ (Class 4) and the goods ‘building materials (not metallic); non-metallic rigid pipes for building, asphalt, pitch and bitumen’ (Class 19) contained in the Community trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.


21.4.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-367/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-463/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/40)                                                      (2001/C 118/43)
By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of           By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-367/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-463/99: Commission of the
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: Hugo BOSS            European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
AG v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-467/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-246/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/44)
                        (2001/C 118/41)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-467/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-246/97: Portuguese Republic v             European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-47/00 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case    C-330/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/45)
                        (2001/C 118/42)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-47/00: (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-330/97: Portuguese Republic v             ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Hasan Gevin v Bundesan-
Commission of the European Communities.                               stalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-416/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovak Republic) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Jozef Križan and Others v Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia
   (Case C-416/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/15
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jozef Križan, Katarína Aksamitová, Gabriela Kokošková, Jozef Kokoška, Martina Strezenická, Jozef Strezenický, Peter Šidlo, Lenka Šidlová, Drahoslava Šidlová, Milan Šimovič, Elena Šimovičová, Stanislav Aksamit, Tomáš Pitoňák, Petra Pitoňáková, Mária Križanová, Vladimír Mizerák, Ľubomír Pevný, Darina Brunovská, Mária Fišerová, Lenka Fišerová, Peter Zvolenský, Katarína Zvolenská, Kamila Mizeráková, Anna Konfráterová, Milan Konfráter, Michaela Konfráterová, Tomáš Pavlovič, Jozef Krivošík, Ema Krivošíková, Eva Pavlovičová, Jaroslav Pavlovič, Pavol Šipoš, Martina Šipošová, Jozefína Šipošová, Zuzana Šipošová, Ivan Čaputa, Zuzana Čaputová, Štefan Strapák, Katarína Strapáková, František Slezák, Agnesa Slezáková, Vincent Zimka, Elena Zimková, Marián Šipoš, mesto Pezinok

      Defendant: Slovenská inšpekcia životného prostredia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law (specifically Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) require or enable the supreme court of a Member State ‘ex officio’ to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling even at a stage of proceedings where the constitutional court has annulled a judgment of the supreme court based in particular on the application of the Community framework on environmental protection and imposed the obligation to abide by the constitutional court’s legal opinions based on breaches of the procedural and substantive constitutional rights of a person involved in judicial proceedings, irrespective of the Community dimension of the case concerned, that is, where in those proceedings the constitutional court, as the court of last instance, has not concluded that there is a need to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling and has provisionally excluded the application of the right to an acceptable environment and the protection thereof in the case concerned?

               2.

               Is it possible to fulfil the basic objective of integrated prevention as defined, in particular, in recitals 8, 9 and 23 in the preamble to and Articles 1 and 15 of Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and, in general, in the Community framework on the environment, that is, pollution prevention and control involving the public in order to achieve a high level of environmental protection as a whole, by means of a procedure where, on commencement of an integrated prevention procedure, the public concerned is not guaranteed access to all relevant documents (Article 6 in conjunction with Article 15 of Directive 96/61/EC), especially the decision on the location of a structure (landfill site), and where, subsequently, at first instance, the missing document is submitted by the applicant on condition that it is not disclosed to other parties to the proceedings in view of the fact that it constitutes trade secrets: can it reasonably be assumed that the location decision (in particular its statement of reasons) will significantly affect the submission of suggestions, observations or other comments?

               3.

               Are the objectives of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment met, especially in terms of the Community framework on the environment, specifically the condition referred to in Article 2 that, before consent is given, certain projects will be assessed in the light of their environmental impact, if the original position of the Ministerstvo životného prostredia (Ministry of the Environment) issued in 1999 and terminating a past environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure is prolonged several years later by a simple decision without a repeat EIA procedure; in other words, can it be said that a decision under Council Directive 85/337/EEC, once issued, is valid indefinitely?

               4.

               Does the requirement arising generally under Directive 96/61/EC (in particular the preamble and Articles 1 and 15a) for Member States to engage in the prevention and control of pollution by providing the public with fair, equitable and timely administrative or judicial proceedings in conjunction with Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC and Articles 6 and 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention apply to the possibility for the public to seek the imposition of an administrative or judicial measure which is preliminary in nature in accordance with national law (for example, an order for the judicial suspension of enforcement of an integrated decision) and allows for the temporary suspension, until a final decision in the case, of the construction of an installation for which a permit has been requested?

               5.

               Is it possible, by means of a judicial decision meeting the requirement of Directive 96/61/EC or Directive 85/337/EEC or Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention, in the application of the public right contained therein to fair judicial protection within the meaning of Article 191(1) and (2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, concerning European Union policy on the environment, to interfere unlawfully with an operator’s right of property in an installation as guaranteed, for example, in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, for example by revoking an applicant’s valid integrated permit for a new installation in judicial proceedings?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26).

      (2)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).


title: Case C-226/03 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2003 (fax of 22 May) by José Martí Peix SA against the judgment delivered on 13 March 2003 (not yet published in the ECR) by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-125/01 between José Martí Peix SA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 213/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2003, for               European Communities in Case T-125/01 between José Martí
a preliminary ruling in the case of University of Huddersfield             Peix SA and the Commission of the European Communities
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following                   was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
questions:                                                                 Communities on 23 May 2003 (fax of 22 May) by José Martí
                                                                           Peix SA, represented by R. García-Gallardo and D. Domínguez
                                                                           Pérez, lawyers.
Where:
1.     a university waives its right to exemptions from VAT in
       respect of any supplies of certain real property owned by           The applicant claims that the Court should:
       it and leases the property to a trust set up and controlled
       by the university
                                                                           1.    declare the appeal admissible;
2.     the trust waives its right to exemption from VAT in
       respect of any supplies of the real property in question
       and grants to the university an underlease of the property          2.    set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court
                                                                                of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-125/01
                                                                                José Martí Peix SA v Commission of the European
3.     the lease and underlease were entered into and carried
                                                                                Communities;
       out by the University with the sole intention of obtaining
       a fiscal advantage and had no independent business
       purpose                                                             3.    order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs
                                                                                incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice as
4.     the lease and leaseback amounted to, and was intended                     well as those incurred in the proceedings before the Court
       by the University and the trust to be, a deferral scheme                  of First Instance.
       (that is, a scheme for the deferral of payment of VAT)
       with a built-in feature that allowed an absolute tax saving
       at a later date
       (a)   are the lease and the underlease taxable supplies for
             the purposes of the Sixth VAT Directive ( 1)?                 Pleas and main arguments
       (b) Do they qualify as economic activities within the
             meaning of the second sentence of Article 4(2) of
             the Sixth VAT Directive?                                      The Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the
                                                                           expression ‘continuous irregularity’ referred to in Article 3 of
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 Decem-
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              ber 1995 on the protection of the European Communities
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to            financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1). As a result of the
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                           broad construction given by the Court of First Instance to that
     basis of assessment OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1-40.
                                                                           expression, the principle of prescription is rendered devoid of
                                                                           practical effect and the interpretation is incompatible with the
                                                                           substance of that principle, which is to penalise an authority’s
                                                                           failure to take any action in respect of an irregularity. The
                                                                           point of prescription is to safeguard the principle of legal
                                                                           certainty and to guarantee the principle of sound administrat-
                                                                           ive practice. The principle of Community solidarity must be
                                                                           interpreted correctly and cannot be used in order to render the
Appeal brought on 23 May 2003 (fax of 22 May) by José                      principle of prescription inapplicable.
Martí Peix SA against the judgment delivered on 13 March
2003 (not yet published in the ECR) by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-125/01 between José Martí Peix
                                                                           The consequences of that incorrect interpretation are serious,
   SA and the Commission of the European Communities                       inasmuch as Regulation No 2988/95 is a regulation of
                                                                           general application where expenditure is financed from the
                         (Case C-226/03 P)                                 Community budget. The Court of First Instance’s interpretation
                                                                           of the Regulation must therefore be followed at national level
                                                                           by the various authorities involved, in spite of the fact that it
                          (2003/C 213/16)                                  entails restriction of the protection enjoyed by every citizen
                                                                           vis-à-vis public authorities.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 March 2003
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-488/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tender procedure — Work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Notification of the evaluation committee’s report — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — CITEB and Belgo-Metal v Parliament
   (Case T-488/12) (1)

   ((Public works contracts - Tender procedure - Work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Notification of the evaluation committee’s report - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 175/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) (Schaerbeek, Belgium); and Belgo-Metal (Wetteren, Belgium) (represented by: R. Simar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Poilvache and L. Fedel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2012 rejecting the tender made by the applicants in response to a contract notice of 19 May 2012, published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2012/S 92-1563620) under reference NINLO.AO-2012-005-BRU-UPIB-02, concerning the carrying out of work for the renovation and extension of the Eastman building in Brussels (Belgium) and awarding that contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cit Blaton SA (CITEB) and Belgo-Metal to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case C-99/06: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, Germany) — Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/26

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 27 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, Germany) — Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel
   (Case C-99/06) (1)

   (2008/C 128/48)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-270/13: Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014  — SACBO v Commission and INEA (Action for annulment — Community financial aid to projects of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks — Lack of direct concern — Non-actionable measure — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/44

         Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 — SACBO v Commission and INEA
   (Case T-270/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Community financial aid to projects of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks - Lack of direct concern - Non-actionable measure - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 175/61
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società per l'aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Muscardini and G. Greco, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and E. Montaguti, Agents) and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) (represented by: I. Ramallo, Agent, and M. Merola, C. Santacroce and L. Armati, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of 18 March 2013 of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) relating to certain expenditure incurred in carrying out a feasibility study concerning the intermodal nature of the Bergamo-Orio al Serio airport (Italy) following the grant of financial aid by the Commission to the Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC, Italian national civil aviation authority).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application by the Republic of Poland for leave to intervene.

               3.

               The Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20. 7. 2013.


title: Case C-382/01: Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
24.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/15
period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
expired on 1 January 2000 without the United Kingdom                   by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of De Danske
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the             Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattesty-
Directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                                         relsen
                                                                                (Case C-383/01)
(1) OJ L 001, 5.1.1999, p. 1-2.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/25)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by
Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission of                  the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                    received at the Court Registry on 5 October 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of De Danske Bilimportører v
                                                                       Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen (Duty and Taxation
                        (Case C-382/01)                                Authority of the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 331/24)
                                                                       1.   Can an indirect duty (registration duty) charged by a
                                                                            Member State, which in the case of new cars amounts to
                                                                            105 % of DKK 52 800 and 180 % of the remainder of
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                 the taxable value, be a measure having an effect equivalent
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October                   to a quantitative restriction on imports and for that
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         reason prohibited under Article 28 EC (reference is made
represented by Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with an                in this connection to the Court’s judgment in Case
address for service in Luxembourg.                                          C-47/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509,
                                                                            paragraph 13)?
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                          2.   If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’: can that registration
                                                                            duty be justified on the grounds that are mentioned in
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or             Article 30 EC or follow from the Court’s case-law on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                Article 28 EC (reference is made to Case 120/78 Rewe-
      European Parliament and Council Directive 98/78/EC of                 Zentral [1979] ECR 649)?
      27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of
      insurance undertakings in an insurance group (1), or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission of
      those measures, the United Kingdom has failed fulfil its
      obligations under that Directive,
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-392/01)
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                                  (2001/C 331/26)
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 5 June 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
                                                                       ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1-12.                                      represented by Isabel Martı́nez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-381/11: Order of the President of the Court of 12 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona — Spain) — Manuel Mesa Bertrán, Cristina Farrán Morenilla v Novacaixagalicia

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona — Spain) — Manuel Mesa Bertrán, Cristina Farrán Morenilla v Novacaixagalicia
   (Case C-381/11) (1)

   2012/C 73/47
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T -242/09: Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Ralf Schräder v CPVO (Lemon Symphony)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/42

         Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Ralf Schräder v CPVO (Lemon Symphony)
   (Case T -242/09)
   2009/C 205/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 23 January 2009;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Lemon Symphony

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Jørn Hansson.

      Decision of the Community Plant Variety Office, appealed against before the Board of Appeal: Refusal to annul Community plant variety right of for Lemon Symphony in accordance with Article 20(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1)

      Appellant before the Board of Appeal: the applicant

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 2100/94 and the generally recognised principles of procedure within the meaning of Article 81 of Regulation No 2100/94 insofar as the Board of Appeal ruled in the contested decision without sufficiently investigating the facts of the case;

               —

               Infringement of Article 20(1)(a) and Article 7 of Regulation No 2100/94 insofar as the Board of Appeal apparently wrongly assumed that the applicant could not fulfil the conditions referred to in Article 20(1)(a) and accordingly, failed to appreciate the scope of that provision;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 insofar as the Board of Appeal based its ruling on grounds on which the applicant did not have an opportunity to express itself before the decision;

               —

               Infringement of Article 63(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1239/95 (2) insofar as the essentials of the oral proceedings were not properly recorded.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).


title: Case C-526/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 October 2011 — IVD GmbH & Co. KG v Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/28

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 October 2011 — IVD GmbH & Co. KG v Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe
      (Case C-526/11)
      (2012/C 25/48)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant and appellant: IVD GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant and respondent: Ärztekammer Westfalen-Lippe

         Other party to the proceedings: WWF Druck + Medien GmbH

         Question referred

      Is a body governed by public law (here: professional association) within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1(9)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1)‘financed, for the most part, by the State …’ or is it subject to ‘management supervision’ by the State, if:

                  —

                  the body has the right by law to raise contributions from its members but does not set the amount of those contributions or the extent of the services to be financed thereby;

                  —

                  the fees regulations, however, require approval by the State?

         (1)  OJ 2010 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-157/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on religion or belief — Workplace regulations of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing visible political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace — Direct discrimination — None — Indirect discrimination — Female worker prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions NV
   (Case C-157/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Workplace regulations of an undertaking prohibiting workers from wearing visible political, philosophical or religious signs in the workplace - Direct discrimination - None - Indirect discrimination - Female worker prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf))
   (2017/C 151/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Samira Achbita, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

      Defendant: G4S Secure Solutions NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive.
   By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/1

         (2007/C 247/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

      OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

      OJ C 140, 9.6.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu