title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-329/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearing of accounts — 1996 and 1997 financial years — Compensation for banana producers)

text:
C 200/2                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                23.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             the Decree of 18 June 1996, together with Article 109(5) of
                                                                                the 1994 Wegenverkeerswet, read in conjunction with
                                                                                Articles 11, 28 and 33 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen, the
                                                                                Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                          obligations under Articles 1(2) and 6(1)(c) of, and point 4 of
                                                                                Annex III to, Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991
                                                                                on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC
                                                                                of 23 July 1996;
                           of 10 July 2003
                                                                              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
in Case C-246/00: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
            nities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                              4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
(Failure by a Member State to comply with its obligations —
Directive 91/439/EEC — Driving licences — Mutual recog-                       (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
nition — Compulsory registration — Calculation of the
                         duration of validity)
                           (2003/C 200/02)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-329/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
In Case C-246/00, Commission of the European Communities                                           European Communities (1)
(Agents: M. Wolfcarius and H.M.H. Speyart) v Kingdom of the
Netherlands (Agent: A. Fierstra), supported by Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta), Application for a declara-               (EAGGF — Clearing of accounts — 1996 and 1997 finan-
tion that, by adopting and maintaining in force Articles 107(1),                     cial years — Compensation for banana producers)
108(1)(h), 109 and 111(1)(a) of the Wegenverkeerswet (Road
Traffic Law) of 21 April 1994 (Stbl. 1994 No 475), as amended
(Stbl. 1996 No 276) and Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbe-
                                                                                (2003/C 200/03)
wijzen (Decree on driving licences) of 28 May 1996
(Stbl. 1996 No 277), as amended by the Decree of 18 June
1996 (Stbl. 1996 No 326), the Kingdom of the Netherlands
has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(2)                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
and 6(1)(c) of, and point 4 of Annex III to, Council Directive
91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991
L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
23 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1), the Court (Sixth                                                the European Court Reports)
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                   In Case C-329/00: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:                 Lapuerta) against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: S. Pardo and M. Niejahr, assisted by J. Guerra
                                                                              Fernández) — application for annulment of Commission Deci-
                                                                              sion 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community
1.    Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force                     financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
      Articles 107(1), 108(1)(h) and Article 111(1)(a) of the                 under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
      Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic Law) of 21 April 1994, as                Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
      amended, as well as Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen            p. 49) in so far as it provides for a financial adjustment to
      (Decree on driving licences) of 28 May 1996, as amended by              made to the expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain as
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 200/3
compensatory aid to banana producers for the 1995 and 1996                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
campaigns — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of
D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-                                           of 10 July 2003
ment on 19 June 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismissed the action in its entirety;                                   in Case C-472/00 P: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Fresh Marine Company A/S (1)
2.    Ordered the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                              (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                   Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed
                                                                              on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
                                                                                Norway)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/05)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 3 July 2003
in Case C-457/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                              In Case C-472/00 P, Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, assisted by N. Khan,
(State aid — Aid to the Belgian group Verlipack — Hollow                      barrister): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                        container glass sector)                               Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
                                                                              Extended Composition) of 24 October 2000 in Case T-178/98
                                                                              Fresh Marine v Commission [2000] ECR II-3331, seeking to
                           (2003/C 200/04)
                                                                              have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceed-
                                                                              ings being: Fresh Marine Company A/S, established in Trond-
                     (Language of the case: French)                           heim (Norway), represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais,
                                                                              avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Fresh
                                                                              Marine Company A/S, established in Trondheim (Norway)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     (represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais), the Court (Third
                      the European Court Reports)                             Chamber,         Extended       Composition),        composed    of:
                                                                              G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
                                                                              and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                              C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris, S. von
In Case C-457/00, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,                       Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
assisted by J.-M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi,                     C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
avocats) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July
G. Rozet): Application for annulment of Commission Decision                   2003, in which it:
2001/856/EC of 4 October 2000 concerning State aid to
Verlipack, Belgium (OJ 2001 L 320, p. 28), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                     1.    Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2003, in which it:                                                            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs relating to the main appeal;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                              3.    Orders Fresh Marine Company A/S to pay the costs relating to
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                               the cross-appeal.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                     (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Case C-283/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Herbert Blesgen v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Herbert Blesgen v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-283/17)
   (2017/C 283/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Herbert Blesgen

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: Is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Case C-350/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Clean Car Autoservice GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien (Freedom of movement for workers - National legislation requiring legal persons to appoint as manager a person residing in the country - Indirect discrimination)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 258/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2. Article 48 of the Treaty precludes a Member State
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                     from providing that the owner of an undertaking
                                                                           exercising a trade on the territory of that State may
                        of 7 May 1998                                      not appoint as manager a person not resident there.
in Case C-350/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Clean Car Autoservice                    (1) OJ C 388 of 21.12.1997.
           GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien (1)
(Freedom of movement for workers Ð National
legislation requiring legal persons to appoint as manager a
 person residing in the country Ð Indirect discrimination)
                        (98/C 258/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: German)                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 May 1998
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        in Case C-390/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
          published in the European Court Reports)                    the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): Lease Plan
                                                                                Luxembourg SA v Belgian State (1)
                                                                      (Sixth VAT Directive Ð Car-leasing services Ð Fixed
In Case C-350/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      establishment Ð Rules governing reimbursement of VAT
of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
                                                                      to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
(Administrative Court) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                State Ð Principle of non-discrimination)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Clean Car Autoservice GmbH and Landeshauptmann von                                            (98/C 258/02)
Wien Ð on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
Treaty and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/
68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
movement for workers within the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; N. Fennelly,                      published in the European Court Reports)
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which
it has ruled:                                                         In Case C-390/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
                                                                      (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
1. The rule of equal treatment in the context of freedom              in the proceedings pending before that court between
     of movement for workers, enshrined in Article 48 of              Lease Plan Luxembourg SA and the Belgian State Ð on
     the EC Treaty, may also be relied upon by an                     the interpretation of Article 9(1) of the Sixth Council
     employer in order to employ, in the Member State in              Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     which he is established, workers who are nationals of            harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
     another Member State.                                            to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:


title: Case T-110/99: Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff against the European Parliament

text:
C 226/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Articles 4, 27, 28 and 29 of the Staff                By court decision dated 24 December 1991, the Tribunal de
    Regulations and of Annex III thereto;                               Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, awarded
                                                                        custody of the daughter of the applicant, an official of the
                                                                        European Parliament, to her former husband and ordered
— infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol (No 2) annexed              the applicant to pay, with effect from 29 January 1990,
    to the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                         8 000 Belgian francs per month by way of contribution to the
                                                                        maintenance of the child, in addition to the amount of the
— breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-                extended family allowances paid by the European Communi-
    discrimination;                                                     ties.
                                                                        By decision of 15 December 1997, the Juvenile Court of the
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 24(1) of              Abruzzi awarded custody of the applicant’s daughter to her
    the Merger Treaty;                                                  uncle and aunt with effect from 29 August 1997.
— infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations; and              By letter of 1 April 1998, the European Parliament informed
                                                                        the applicant, inter alia, that payment of the family allowances
— misuse of powers and abuse of procedure.                              to the girl’s uncle and aunt could not commence until the first
                                                                        day of the month following the court decision of 15 December
                                                                        1997, that is to say, 1 January 1998.
                                                                        By its contested decision, the European Parliament refused to
                                                                        pay the family allowances in respect of the girl to her uncle
                                                                        and aunt for the period from 29 August 1997 up to and
                                                                        including 31 December 1997; in its view, the date to be taken
                                                                        into account for the purposes of the payment of family
                                                                        allowances to a third person is the date of delivery of the court
Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti                        decision.
              against the European Parliament
                                                                        The applicant maintains that that decision was adopted in
                                                                        breach of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff
                        (Case T-108/99)                                 Regulations. In accordance with those articles, the point in
                                                                        time which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes
                                                                        of payment of the allowances to a third person is the date on
                        (1999/C 226/57)                                 which the child is effectively entrusted to the care of that
                                                                        person by the court decision, even where the decision itself is
                                                                        not delivered until months or even years later. Moreover, it
                  (Language of the case: French)                        must be borne in mind that decision made in family law cases
                                                                        almost always have retroactive effect.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on
3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in Brussels,
represented by Claudine Junion, lawyer, Brussels, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christine          Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff
Nabozny, 3 Rue Mathias Tresch.                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-110/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 226/58)
— annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on
    18 June 1998 in so far as it refuses the payment to Mr and                             (Language of the case: French)
    Mrs Reggimenti of family allowances for the period from
    29 August 1997 to 31 December 1997;                                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3
— annul the decision of 1 February 1999 rejecting the                   May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxembourg,
    complaint as unfounded;                                             represented by Laurent Mosar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame,
— order the European Parliament to comply with the judg-                Luxembourg.
    ment to be delivered, by paying to Mr and Mrs Reggimenti
    family allowances for the period from 29 August 1997 to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1997, plus default interest at the rate                 — annul the decision by which the appointing authority took
    prescribed by law:                                                       the view that the applicant’s absence from 3 September to
                                                                             15 September 1998 was irregular and deducted 68.50
— order the European Parliament to pay the cost.                             working hours from her annual leave entitlement;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/33
— annul the decision by which the appointing authority took              Action brought on 6 May 1999 by Ignacio Samper against
     the view that the applicant’s absence from 13 November                                 the European Parliament
     to 25 November 1998 was irregular and deducted 81
     working hours from her annual leave entitlement;
                                                                                (Case T-111/99)
— order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
     compensation for non material damage in the sum of                                          (1999/C 226/59)
     LUF 100 000 (one hundred thousand Luxembourg francs);
— order the defendant to pay the costs;                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— reserve unto the applicant the right to submit further                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
     evidence during the course of the written procedure.                the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on 6
                                                                         May 1999 by Ignacio Samper, residing in Spain, represented
                                                                         by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Fort Rheinsheim.
Upon receiving her annual leave statement on 28 January                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
1999, the applicant found that 81 hours had been deducted
from the amount of annual leave to which she is lawfully                 — annul Vacancy Notice No 8675 dated 14 April 1999,
entitled.                                                                    adopted by the President of the European Parliament, Mr
                                                                             José Maria Gil-Robles, and published on 26 April 1999,
                                                                             requiring the submission by no later than 7 May 1999 of
According to the defendant, the applicant’s repeated absences                applications for the post of Head of Division (grade A 3)
cannot be justified by the existence of a pathological condition,            in the Directorate-General for Information and Public
which is, moreover, contested. On several occasion, she did                  Relations, Coordination of External Offices, Publications
not keep appointments with the medical officer and the                       and Public Events, Madrid Information Office, and annul
examining doctor was unable to contact her at her home. As                   the procedure initiated by that vacancy notice for recruit-
the defendant classified this as conduct which was ‘hostile’ to              ment by way of transfer or promotion;
the institution, she was sent a formal warning and her absences
during the periods from 3 September 1998 to 15 September
1998 and from 13 November 1998 to 25 November 1998                       — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs in any
were regarded as irregular.                                                  event, including the costs of the proceedings for interim
                                                                             measures.
The applicant maintains that she was incapable of working
during the above-mentioned periods. As regards the checks                Pleas in law and main arguments
carried out to see whether she was at home, she states that she
was consulting her own doctor at the time; and as to the
alleged absences which made it impossible for her to undergo             The applicant stases that on 21 February 1995 he was
a medical check-up, the applicant maintains that she was                 appointed head of division in grade A 3 and assigned to the
incapable of attending at the institution’s medical service              post of head of the European Parliament’s Information Office
during the periods concerned. Furthermore, she invariably                in Madrid. In its judgment of 18 March 1999 the Court of
produced medical certificates. She claims that the defendant’s           Justice held that the Parliament had committed an error in the
reproaches are unjustified.                                              recruitment procedure and that the decision appointing him
                                                                         to that post should be annulled. The Parliament complied with
                                                                         that judgment by decision of 14 April 1999, by which it
In support of her application, the applicant pleads violation of         annulled the decision appointing the applicant to the post in
the rights of the defence and infringement of Articles 25 and            issue and reinstated him in grade A 5, which had been the
60 of the Staff Regulations. She argues that the deduction by            grade occupied by him at the time of his promotion to that
the defendant of days of leave on account of unjustified                 post. On the same day, a vacancy notice was drawn up in
absences, contrary to the aforementioned provisions of the               relation to the post in issue; this specified that the post was
Staff Regulations, also constitutes a serious breach of adminis-         open only to grade A 4 officials.
trative duty giving rise to liability on the part of the institution.
Furthermore, according to the applicant, the defendant failed
to assist her in tackling the problems which she encountered             The applicant observes that, for the purposes of complying
with a person whose conduct she felt to be threatening. That             with the judgment of the Court of Justice, the Parliament was
attitude amounts to a flagrant breach of Article 24 of the Staff         not in any way obliged to take immediate steps to publish the
Regulations.                                                             vacancy notice in question. By publishing the vacancy notice
                                                                         and laying down conditions and time-limits for the submission
                                                                         of applications which were not such as to enable the applicant
                                                                         to be re-established beforehand in his career, the Parliament
                                                                         has prevented him from applying for the post in issue, whereas,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Socal No 2, Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of 26 May 1995 in the case of Mercedes Lores Guillín v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (Case C-184/95)

text:
No C 189/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 7 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Socal              ( Social Court) No 2, Santiago de Compostela, of 26 May
No 2, Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of                1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
26 May 1995 in the case of Mercedes Lores Guillín v.                   1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mercedes Lores
Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la              Guillín against Instituto Nacional de Empleo (National
                           Seguridad Social                            Employment Institute ) and Instituto Nacional de la
                           (Case C-184/95 )                            Seguridad Social (National Social Security Institute ) on
                                                                       questions which are the same as in Case C-88/95 i 1 ).
                              95/C 189/27 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social               (!) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995, p. 12.
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         ( Fourth Chamber)                                                      (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 17 May 1995                                                         of 17 May 1995
in Case T- 1 0/94 : Achim Kratz v. Commission of the                   in Case T-16/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                   European Communities { l )                                             European Communities ( 1 )
(Vacancy notice — Level of post to be filled — Fixed by                (Vacancy notice — Level ofpost to be filled — Rejection of
       appointing authority after consulting the advisory                                 candidatures — Reasoning)
          committee on appointments — Rejection of                                                 ( 95/C 189/29 )
                             candidatures)
                            ( 95/C 189/28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-16/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
In Case T- 1 0/94 : Achim Kratz, an official of the                    Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Commission of the European Communities , residing in                   Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
Tervuren ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the            Demaseure and Véronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener,                 of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, against the
against the Commission of the European Communities                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents :
( Agents : Joseph Griesmar and, at the oral proceedings,               Ana-Maria Alves Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck and, at the
Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the                oral proceedings, Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for the
decision of 3 May 1993 not to accept the applicant's                   annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the
candidature for the post of Head of the Unit 'Public Health            applicant's candidature for the post COM/106/92 as
— Europe against Aids ' — the Court of First Instance                  Head of the Unit I/E/4 'Infrastructure (including
( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of              telecommunications ) and energy ( including nuclear safety)'
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor,             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 May 1995 , the                of K. Lenaerts , President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
operative part of which is as follows :                                P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                       judgment on 17 May 1995 , the operative part of which is as
1 , the decision of the Commission of 3 May 1 993 rejecting            follows :
      the applicant's candidature for the post of Head of the
      Unit 'Public Health — Europe against Aids ' and the
      related decisions to fix that post at Grade AS!A4 and            1 , the action is dismissed;
      subsequently to appoint Mrs Dellicour to that post are
      annulled;
                                                                       2 , the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
2 , the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
( ! ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case C-55/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A.

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A.
   (Case C-55/11)
   2011/C 139/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vodafone España, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?

               2.

               In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?

               3.

               Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 21


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of 13 March 1995 in the case of: Nuova Castelli SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-92/95)

text:
No C 137/ 12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
2 . Does the term 'hold ' within the meaning of                             ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
     Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               Member State being precluded from receiving such
     signify that the taxable person must at all times be in a              allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
     position to present the invoice to the tax authorities ?               Treaty ?
3 . Is the exercise of the right to deduct input tax precluded
     by virtue of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive
     77/388/EEC where the taxable person no longer ' holds'
     an invoice ?
( ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                        13 March 1995 in the case of: Nuova Castelli SpA
                                                                                v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                                ( Case C-92/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Social
No 2 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
9 March 1995 in the case of Bernardina Martinez Losada                  European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de
                          Seguridad Social                              Civil Section) of 13 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 24 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
                           ( Case C-88/95 )                             on the same questions as in Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,
                             ( 95/C 137/23 )                            C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C-60/95 and C-81 /95 (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social
( Social Court ) No 2, Santiago de Compostela, of 9 March
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
23 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bernardina Martinez Losada against Instituto Nacional de
Empleo ( National Employment Institute ) and Instituto
Nacional de Seguridad Social (National Social Security
Institute ) on the following questions :                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                        Nederlanden by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in
                                                                        the case of Saueressig GmbH 8c Co. v. Forbo-Krommenie
 1 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in                                        BV
     its present version ) be interpreted , as regards the
     particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning                                 ( Case C-99/95 )
     that periods of insurance or of employment completed                                         ( 95/C 137/25
     under the legislation of any other Member State must be
     taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
     unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Real Decreto             European Communities by decision of the Hoge Raad der
     Legislativo ( Royal Legislative Decree ) 1 /1994 of 20 June        Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
     1994, which approves the consolidated version of the               24 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     Ley General de la Seguridad Social ( General Law on                on 30 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     Social Security ), to the extent to which the right to a           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v. Forbo-Krommenie BV on the
     retirement pension may be obtained on the basis of such            following questions :
     contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
     State other than that of the competent institution ?               1 . Does the procedure of 'preliminary examination of
                                                                            witnesses prior to the institution of proceedings' set out
2 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not                     in Article 214 et seq. of the Netherlands Code of Civil
     paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for              Procedure come within the scope of the Brussels
     less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a                  Convention ?
     retirement pension in any Member State ?
                                                                        2 . If the answer to Question 1 is yes : can that procedure
3 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive                 also constitute a measure within the meaning of
     the unemployment allowance available for persons of                    Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
     more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
     to age requirements, they are entitled to a retirement
     pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme


title: Removal from the register of C-365/96

text:
13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 184/9
         Removal from the register of C-365/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-203/97 (1)
                        (98/C 184/14)                                                      (98/C 184/15)
By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-365/96 (reference for          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):               removal from the register of Case C-203/97: Commission
Ruhrgas AG and Thyssengas GmbH v. Bundeskartellamt.                of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany.
(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 28 April 1998                                                   of 30 April 1998
in Case T-184/95: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             in Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale v. European
mbH against Council of the European Union and                                               Parliament (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Exchanges of officials between the Parliament
(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act Ð                   and national administrations Ð Subsistence allowance Ð
Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 Ð Embargo on trade with                Travel expenses Ð Complaint Ð Express rejection Ð
Iraq Ð Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation                             Inadmissibility of the action)
        Ð Liability for an unlawful act Ð Damage)
                                                                                (98/C 184/17)
                        (98/C 184/16)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-184/95, Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             In Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale, a former member
mbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by               of the temporary staff of the European Parliament,
Professor Karl M. Meessen, with an address for service in          residing at Messina (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Patrick Kinsch, 100                  Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the
Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse, against Council of the European         Reggio di Calabria Bar, with an adress for service in
Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, then Stephan               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Marquardt and Antonio Tanca) and Commission of the                 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament (Agents:
European Communities (Agents: Peter Gilsdorf, Allan                Manfred Peter and Antonio Caiola) Ð application, first,
Rosas and Jörn Sack) Ð application for compensation for            for annulment of the decision of the Parliament refusing to
the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result         grant the applicant the subsistence allowance and travel
of the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90             expenses provided for by the Parliament's decision of
of 8 August 1990 preventing trade by the Community as              26 October 1988 and, second, for damages Ð the Court
regards Iraq and Kuwait (OJ L 213 of 9.8.1990, p. 1) Ð             of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended              Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Composition), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,           Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
V. Tiili and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,            given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it:
gave a judgment on 28 April 1998 in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.                                          (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.


title: Case T-331/99: Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)

text:
18.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/29
The applicant also criticizes what it considers to be an                Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to regis-
erroneous association made by the Commission between the                before the Board of            ter
principles of solidarity and redistribution within the public           Appeal:
health system, on the one hand, and requests to be supplied
by third-party, independent operators, on the other. In its             Pleas in law:                  — infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
view, extending the scope of distribution as a fundamental
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
element in the principle of solidarity to the point of demanding
sacrifices on the part of third-party suppliers is tantamount to                                       — misapplication of Article 7
placing a charge on the latter which is both discriminatory and                                            (1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
unjustified.                                                                                No 40/94
(1) Joined Cases C-159 and C-160/91 Poucet and Pistre [1993] ECR
    I-637.
                                                                        Action brought on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund
                                                                                Nielsen against the European Central Bank
Action brought on 23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi
HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Office for Har-
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and                                              (Case T-333/99)
                             Designs)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/65)
                         (Case T-331/99)
                          (2000/C 79/64)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                  (Language of the case: German)                        before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 25 November 1999 by Kasper Lund Nielsen, Frank-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          furt-am-Main, Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regi-
Market (Trade marks and Designs) was brought before the                 na Steiner and Silvia Mittländer of the Frankfurt am Main Bar,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
23 November 1999 by Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld                    Aloyse Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de
GmbH, Bielefeld, Germany (formerly Stora Carbonless Paper               Banques et d’Assurances, 29 Avenue Monterey, Luxembourg.
GmbH), represented by Ulrike Alice Ulrich, of Cohausz &
Florack, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Ernest T. Freylinger S.A., 234 Route d’Arlon,          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Luxembourg.
                                                                        1. Declare that his dismissal under Article 41 of the Con-
                                                                            ditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Bank (hereinafter ‘the CoE’), is ineffective and that the
                                                                            employment relationship between the applicant and the
— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                        defendant was not dissolved by the dismissal but continues
     8 September 1999 in Case R 175/1999-3 and order the                    to subsist as though notice had not been given;
     Office to publish the Community trade mark application in
     accordance with Article 10 of the Trade Mark Regulation;
                                                                        2. Order the defendant to continue to employ the applicant as
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     a documentalist on the contractual terms of employment;
                                                                        3. Order the defendant to pay the basic salary retained under
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Article 44 of the CoE;
Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘Giroform’ — appli-             4. Declare the decision of the Management Committee, which
                              cation no 533406                              was notified to the applicant by letter of 9 November
                                                                            1999, invalid;
Goods or services:            Paper, cardboard and goods main-
                              ly from these materials included          5. Declare that the disciplinary proceedings brought against
                              in Class 16; printed matter                   the applicant under Article 43 of the CoE were unlawful.


title: Case C-209/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the case of Theodor Schilling and Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd

text:
C 212/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.7.2001
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                   (b) the third party has no defence to infringement by
                                                                                virtue of Article 6(1) of the Council Directive of the
                                                                                21st December 1988 to approximate the laws of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      the Member States relating to trade marks
                                                                                (89/104/EEC) (1);
The Commission submits that Netherlands has not correctly
implemented the following provisions of the directive into                     does the third party have a defence to infringement on
Netherlands law:                                                               the ground that the use complained of does not indicate
                                                                               trade origin (i.e. a connection in the course of trade
—     Article 8(2) (use of anaesthesia in the case of serious                  between the goods and the trade mark proprietor)?
      injury which may cause severe pain): A draft amendment
      to the ‘Dierproevenbesluit’ (animal experiments order) for
                                                                          2.   If so, is the fact that the use in question would be
      the implementation of Article 8(2)(b), last sentence,
                                                                               perceived as a badge of support, loyalty or affiliation to
      of the directive, was, according to the Netherlands
                                                                               the trade mark proprietor a sufficient connection?
      Government, recently sent for the opinion of the Raad
      van State.
—     Article 11 (release of animals): The Commission submits
      that Article 10(a), second paragraph of the Wet op de               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
      Dierproeven (law on animal experiments) has a general
      scope and does not concern specifically the release of
      animals.
—     Article 18(1) (identification marking of dogs, cats and
      primates): There is no provision in Netherlands law to
      the effect that before they are weaned they must be provided
      with an individual identification mark in the least painful
      manner possible.
—     Article 22(1) (mutual recognition of results of animal
      experiments): The Commission submits that this pro-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfin-
      vision must be implemented in national law by means of              anzhof by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the
      a statutory provision with binding force.                           case of Theodor Schilling and Angelika Fleck-Schilling v
                                                                                Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd
(1) OJ 1987, L 117, p. 31.
                                                                                (Case C-209/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/24)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   (Federal Finance Court) of 21 February 2001, which was
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order                    received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2001, for a
of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal                       preliminary ruling in the case of Theodor Schilling and
           Football Club plc against Matthew Reed                         Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd on the
                                                                          following questions:
                          (Case C-206/01)
                                                                          1.   Is it contrary to the first paragraph of Article 14 of the
                                                                               Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Euro-
                         (2001/C 212/23)                                       pean Communities of 8 April 1965 (BGBl II 1965, 1482,
                                                                               1488) if German nationals who work in Luxembourg as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         officials of the European Community and live there may
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                          not, in the context of assessment to German income tax,
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 4 May 2001,                   deduct expenditure in respect of a household help
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for                   employed in Luxembourg under Paragraph 10(1)(8) of
a preliminary ruling in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc                  the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax) because
against Matthew Reed, on the following questions:                              the contributions to the statutory pension insurance
                                                                               scheme for the household help were not paid to the
1.    Where a trade mark is validly registered and
                                                                               German pension insurance scheme?
      (a)   a third party uses in the course of trade a sign
            identical with that trade mark in relation to goods           2.   If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 48(4)
            which are identical with those for whom the trade-                 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that an EC
            mark is registered; and                                            official may not rely on Article 48 of the EC Treaty?
 ---pagebreak--- 28.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/15
3.    If Question 2 is answered in the negative: Is it contrary to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 15 June 1999
      Article 48 of the EC Treaty if an EC official living in            without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
      Luxembourg who is deemed to be resident in Germany                 necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
      and pays contributions in Luxembourg to the statutory              referred to in the Commission’s application.
      pension insurance scheme for a household help is not
      entitled to deduct special expenditure under Para-
      graph 10(1)(8) of the Einkommensteuergesetz?                       (1) OJ L 71, 10.3.1998, p. 1.
4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: May the
      principles developed in the judgment in Case C-112/91
      Werner [1993] ECR I-429 be applied to the present case?
                                                                         Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                                                                                (Case C-211/01)
Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of                                               (2001/C 212/26)
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         An action against Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (Case C-210/01)                                 23 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 212/25)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the            —     annul the Council decisions of 19 March 2001 concern-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May                         ing the conclusion of the agreement between the Euro-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            pean Community and Bulgaria and Hungary (1) on trans-
represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Roberto Amorosi, acting as                    port inasmuch as they are based on Article 93 EC whereas
Agents.                                                                        the necessary and sufficient legal basis is Article 71 EC;
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of those agreements until the Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    adopts new measures;
                                                                         —     order the Council to pay the costs.
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      mission Directive 98/11/EC of 27 January 1998                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard
      to energy labelling of household lamps (1) or, in any              The proper legal basis for the adoption of the transport
      event, by failing to forward them to the Commission, the           agreements referred to is Article 71 EC, the only basis required
      Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under that       by the primary objective of the said instruments. The fiscal
      directive; and                                                     element must form an integral part of those agreements
                                                                         because it is involved in the objective of implementing the
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       common transport policy. Its role is to ensure that the system
                                                                         of reciprocal authorisations, created under the agreements, is
                                                                         run in a non-discriminatory manner.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The concurrent use of Article 93 EC as a legal basis is precluded
                                                                         by the fact that Article 71 requires only qualified majority
                                                                         voting in the Council, whereas Article 93 requires unanimity.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 Admittedly, the problem regarding consultation of the Euro-
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        pean Parliament has not arisen in practice in light of
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            Article 300(3) which governs the conclusion of international
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          agreements. Nevertheless the possibility remains since the


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 May 2004 in Case T- 358/02: Deutsche Post AG and DHL International Srl v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Approval by the Commission of aid granted by the Italian authorities to Poste Italiane — Action for annulment brought by competitors — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 27 May 2004
   in Case T- 358/02: Deutsche Post AG and DHL International Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Approval by the Commission of aid granted by the Italian authorities to Poste Italiane - Action for annulment brought by competitors - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 228/91)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T- 358/02: Deutsche Post AG, established in Bonn (Germany), DHL International Srl., established in Rozzano (Italy), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci, J. Flett and V. Kreuschitz), supported by the Italian Republic (Agents: initially U. Leanza, subsequently I. Braguglia, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by B. O'Connor, Solicitor, and A. Fratini, lawyer — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March 2002 on the aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (formerly Ente Poste Italiane) (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 29) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission and by Post Italiane SpA. The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.


title: Case C-185/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 22 February 2001 in the case of Auto Lease Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für Finanzen

text:
14.7.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/49
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Where a lessee fills up a leased car in the name and at the
                                                                       expense of the lessor at filling stations, is there a supply of fuel
—     set aside the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by          by the lessor to the lessee and must tax be paid on this supply
      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities          at the place of supply within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of
      (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v European          Directive 77/388/EEC or is the ‘onward supply’ included in the
      Environment Agency;                                              lessor’s supply of a service that is taxable under Article 9 of
                                                                       Directive 77/388/EEC?
—     proceed to adjudicate afresh in the matter, and thus:
      —     annul the decision cancelling internal competition         (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
            EEA/T/99/1, communicated to the appellant by
            letter of 27 September 1999;
      —     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 transfer-
            ring the appellant from the Commission to the
            European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it
            classifies him in grade A5, step 3, with effect from
            1 November 1999;
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
      —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets      icht Stuttgart by order of 4 April 2001 in the case of
            of proceedings.                                            Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany —
                                                                                Kreiswehrersatzamt Schwäbisch Gmünd
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Case C-186/01)
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in                                 (2001/C 200/88)
      finding that the Commission’s threats ‘definitively to
      cease using transfers in future’ for the benefit of the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      European Environment Agency in the event of a refusal            European Communities by order of 4 April 2001 by the
      to cancel internal competition EEA/T/99/1 did not have           Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Administrative Court, Stuttgart),
      the effect of vitiating the way in which the appointing          which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
      authority had exercised its discretion by proceeding to          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Dory v
      cancel the competition in question.                              Federal Republic of Germany Kreiswehrersatzamt (District
                                                                       Recruiting Office) Schwäbisch Gmünd on the following ques-
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in
                                                                       tion, in particular with regard to the interpretation of Article 2
      imposing conditions for appointment as an established
                                                                       of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
      official which are not provided for in the third paragraph
                                                                       tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
      of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations and in failing to
                                                                       as regards access to employment, vocational training and
      verify whether the European Environment Agency had in
                                                                       promotion, and working conditions (1):
      fact reconstituted the appellant’s career as regards both
      the his grade on establishment and his seniority in step.
                                                                       Does German compulsory military service for men only
                                                                       conflict with European law?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of 22 February 2001 in the case of Auto Lease
            Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für Finanzen
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                         (Case C-185/01)                               Verwaltungssenats Salzburg by order of that court of 25
                                                                       April 2001 in the case of Francisco Javier Gonzales
                         (2001/C 200/87)                                                             Moreno
                                                                                (Case C-188/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 22 February 2001 by the
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                                    (2001/C 200/89)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Auto Lease Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Finanzen on the following question (1):                                European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-


title: Case T-270/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — ANKO v REA (Arbitration clause — Subsidy agreement entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — ESS project — Conformity with the contractual provisions of the suspension of payments to the applicant and of the conditions for lifting that suspension of payments — Default interest)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — ANKO v REA

   (Case T-270/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Subsidy agreement entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - ESS project - Conformity with the contractual provisions of the suspension of payments to the applicant and of the conditions for lifting that suspension of payments - Default interest))
   (2017/C 022/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as agents, assisted initially by O. Lytra and subsequently by A. Saratsi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the suspension, imposed by REA, of the payment of the balance of the financial contribution owed to the applicant in respect of the implementation of Subsidy Agreement No 217951, for the financing of the ‘Emergency Support System’ project, entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), amounts to an infringement of its contractual obligations and that that sum must be paid to the applicant, together with default interest, to be calculated from the date of service of the action.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Research Executive Agency (REA) suspended its payments to ΑΝΚΟ AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias in breach of Section ΙΙ.5 (3)(d) of the general conditions annexed to Subvention Agreement No 217951 for the financing of the ‘Emergency Support System’ project, entered into in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013);

               2.

               Orders REA to pay to ΑΝΚΟ AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias a sum corresponding to the intermediate payments which should not have been suspended concerning the latter’s participation in the ‘Emergency Support System’ project, within the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of their suspension, together with default interest, starting from, for each reporting period, the expiry of the period for payment of 105 days following receipt of the corresponding reports, at the rate in force on the first day of the month of the payment default, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series, increased by three and a half percentage points;

               3.

               Orders REA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  6 December 2005  in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04; reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen, on the application of: ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency (C-453/03); references from the Consiglio di Stato: Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04) and Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage: Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi) v Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) (Animal health and public health requirements — Composite feedingstuffs for animals — Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product — Infringement of the principle of proportionality)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 6 December 2005
   in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04; reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen, on the application of: ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency (C-453/03); references from the Consiglio di Stato: Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04) and Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage: Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi) v Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) (1)

   (Animal health and public health requirements - Composite feedingstuffs for animals - Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product - Infringement of the principle of proportionality)
   (2006/C 36/10)
   Languages of the cases: English, Italian and Dutch
   In Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04: References for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC, brought by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) (C-453/03), by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) (C-11/04 and C-12/04) and by the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) (C-194/04), by decisions of 23 October 2003, 11 November 2003 and 22 April 2004, received by the Court on 27 October 2003, 15 January 2004 and 26 April 2004 respectively, in the proceedings The Queen, on the application of: ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency, (C-453/03); Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04); Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); and Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi), v Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) — the Court (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, and K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Examination of heading (a) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 1 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and of Question 1(a) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of supporting the conclusion that Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC was not validly adopted on the basis of Article 152(4)(b) EC.

               2.

               Examination of Question 4 in Case C-12/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

               3.

               Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2, which requires manufacturers of compound animal feedingstuffs to indicate, at a customer's request, the exact composition of a feedingstuff, is invalid in the light of the principle of proportionality. By contrast, examination of heading (c) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 2 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and Question 1(c) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of that principle.

               4.

               Directive 2002/2 must be interpreted as meaning that its application is not contingent on the adoption of the positive list of feed materials designated by their specific names referred to in recital (10) in the preamble to that directive.

               5.

               Even in the case in which a court of a Member State forms the view that the conditions have been satisfied under which it may suspend application of a Community measure, in particular where the question of the validity of that measure has already been referred to the Court, the competent national administrative authorities of the other Member States cannot suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court has ruled on its validity. National courts alone are entitled to determine, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the cases brought before them, whether the conditions governing the grant of interim relief have been satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.

      OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.

      OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2002 in Case 203/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): Fazenda Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the import duties to be collected — Calculation of the time-limit for taking action for recovery)

text:
C 274/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.11.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                            Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002
                                                                            by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                           (First Chamber)                                  the European Communities in Case T-194/00 (1) between
                                                                                Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament
                            of 8 July 2002
                                                                                (Case C-279/02 P)
in Case 203/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): Fazen-
               da Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/27)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Post-clearance
recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
import duties to be collected — Calculation of the time-limit
                  for taking action for recovery)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by
                           (2002/C 274/26)                                  the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno
                                                                            Antas de Campos and European Parliament was brought
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                            30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos, represented by
                                                                            C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-203/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme                        —    quash the contested judgment for errors in law, as a result
Administrative Tribunal) for a preliminary ruling in the                         of the misapplication, in the present case, of the principle
proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda                            of sound administration, the duty to provide reasons, the
Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd., intervener: Ministério Público —                    principle of equality and non-discrimination and the rules
on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council                          guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing;
Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-
clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which
have not been required of the person liable for payment on
                                                                            —    also on the grounds of breach of the principle of sound
goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — the Court (First                      administration and of the duty to provide reasons and
                                                                                the principle of equality and non-discrimination, annul
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                                the decision of the President of the European Parliament,
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                      communicated to the appellant by means of letter
                                                                                No 109172, of 14 July 2000, in reply to a complaint
8 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                submitted by him on 2 December 1999;
The expression ‘entry in the accounts’ used in Article 1(2)(c) and in
the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)         —    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of                     assessment of the facts in support of the claim for
import duties or export duties which have not been required of the               compensation, the case to proceed to final judgment on
person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure               that matter;
involving the obligation to pay such duties refers to the administrative
act determining the amount of the import or export duties to be
collected by the competent authorities and not to the entry by the          —    in the event that the judgment of the Court of First
customs authorities in accounts books, or on equivalent computer                 Instance is quashed on the sole ground of infringement
media, of such amount. Such entry is not a condition prior essential             of the right to a fair hearing, refer the case back to the
to the taking of action for post-clearance recovery.                             Court of First Instance to hear the evidence previously
                                                                                passed over;
( 1) OJ 2001 C 227.
                                                                            —    order the European Parliament to pay the costs of these
                                                                                proceedings as well as those incurred by the appellant in
                                                                                Case T-194/00.