title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 9 October 1997 in Case C-152/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens): Michel Macon and Others v. Préfet de l'Aisne (Additional levy on milk - Reference quantity - Application for a grant of compensation for definitive discontinuation of milk production - Refusal)

text:
22 . 11 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Second Chamber)                                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 9 October 1997
                                                                                of 9 October 1997
in Case C-152/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ): Michel Macon and                in Case C-163/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 Others v. Prefet de l'Aisne (')                      the House of Lords ): Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn v. Kevin
                                                                                Cinnamond i 1 )
(Additional levy on milk — Reference quantity —
Application for a grant of compensation for definitive                (Brussels Convention — Article 21 — Lis pendens — San
       discontinuation of milk production — Refusal)                  Sebastian   Accession        Convention    —   Article 29   —
                                                                                Transitional provisions)
                           ( 97/C 357/12 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/ 13 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-163/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to the
                                                                      Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
In Case C-152/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif                      on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
(Administrative Court ), Amiens ( France ), for a preliminary         and Commercial Matters from the House of Lords for a
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
between Michel Macon and Others and Prefet de l'Aisne                 court between Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn and Kevin
— on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation            Cinnamond — on the interpretation of Article 21 of the
( EEC ) No 1637/91 of 13 June 1991 fixing compensation                said Convention ( OJ L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 36 ), as
with regard to the reduction of the reference quantities              amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
referred to in Article 5 (c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68         Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
and compensation for the definitive discontinuation of                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
milk production ( OJ L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p. 30 ) — the             ( OJ L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 1 ) and the Convention of
Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen,                  25   October    1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch                 Republic ( OJ L 388 , 31 . 12 . 1982, p. 1 ) and the
( Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate              Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic ( OJ L 285 ,
9 October 1997, in which it has ruled:                                3 . 10. 1989, p. 1 ), and of Article 29 of the Convention of
                                                                      26 May 1989 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed
                                                                      of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
                                                                      Mancini ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and
Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1637/91 of                   G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D.
13 June 1991 fixing compensation with regard to the                   Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
reduction of the reference quantities referred to in Article 5        Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in
(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 and compensation for                which it has ruled :
the definitive discontinuation of milk production must be
interpreted as meaning that a farmer may be granted
compensation for definitive discontinuation of all milk
production only if, on the date of his application, he is
producing milk in his capacity as a producer within the               Article 29 (1 ) of the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
meaning of Article 12 (c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for                 Republic to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of           Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commerical
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                       Matters must be interpreted as meaning that where
products sector and if he possesses an individual reference           proceedings involving the same cause of action and
quantity in respect of direct sales.                                  between the same parties are pending in two different
                                                                      Contracting States, the first proceedings having been
(') OJ C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                      brought before the date of entry into force of the Brussels
                                                                      Convention     between       those  States   and   the  second
                                                                      proceedings after that date, the court second seised must
                                                                      apply Article 21 of the latter Convention if the court first
                                                                      seised has assumed jurisdiction on the basis of a rule


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 180, 27.7.2002

text:
10.8.2002        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         C 191/33
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                    (2002/C 191/57)
             Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
          OJ C 180, 27.7.2002
          Past publications
          OJ C 169, 13.7.2002
          OJ C 156, 29.6.2002
          OJ C 144, 15.6.2002
          OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
          OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
          OJ C 109, 4.5.2002
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


C 20/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.1.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-11/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-306/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/58)                                                          (2000/C 20/61)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-11/96: Donald George Gage and David John Gage v                  Case T-306/97: M.C. Lewis, M.A. Lewis and D.C. Lewis v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities.                                                   European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-304/97 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-90/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/59)                                                          (2000/C 20/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the First
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-90/98: Assidomän Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesund
Case T-304/97: W.J.C. Hilsdon v Council of the European                 Bruk, Korsnäs AB, Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora
Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-305/97 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-135/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/63)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 22 October 1999, the Court of First Instance of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                the European Communities (single judge) has ordered the
Case T-305/97: Jimmy Hull v Council of the European Union               removal from the register of Case T-135/98: Elaine Spence v
and Commission of the European Communities.                             Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Case C-227/01: Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
28.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 7 June 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
      to guarantee the quality of bathing water in accordance
      with the limit values in Directive 76/160/EEC (1) and by                                    (Case C-227/01)
      failing to comply with the minimum frequency of
      sampling operations, as required under that directive, the
      Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of                                          (2001/C 212/34)
      Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)
      and 6(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality
      of bathing water;                                                   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 June
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for
      present proceedings.
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard Berscheid,
                                                                          Wagner Centre C 254.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     declare that by not carrying out an environmental impact
                                                                                assessment in connection with the ‘Valencia Tarragona
—     Article 4(1) of the directive, in conjunction with Articles 3             railway project, Las Palmas-Oropesa section. Platform’, a
      and 5(1) thereof, requires Member States to take measures                 project forming part of that known as the ‘Mediterranean
      to ensure that a specific result is achieved before the                   Corridor’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      expiry of a set period (10 December 1985), and, apart                     obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5(2) and 6(2) of Council
      from the exceptions laid down in the directive, a Member                  Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
      State cannot plead special circumstances as a ground for                  ment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      failure to comply with that obligation. It follows that                   on the environment;
      Denmark cannot successfully argue that compliance with
      the directive is satisfied if it simply adopts measures with        —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      a view to complying therewith. Denmark cannot invoke
      Article 5(2) as a ground for adjusting compliance percent-
      ages in respect of ’fortuitous excesses’ deemed to result
      from pollution by animals or heavy rain, inasmuch as                Pleas in law and main arguments
      those conditions, which are in no wise documented,
      cannot be regarded as constituting abnormal weather
      conditions.
                                                                          Failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC in preparing
                                                                          the railway project: The project was not subjected to the
—     Obligation under Article 6(1): the Commission can accept            environmental impact assessment provided for in the directive,
      that the directive provides the possibility of reducing the         which was compulsory in this instance as the project was one
      number of sampling operations. However, with regard to              of those referred to in Point 7 of Annex I to the directive. The
      the 11 specific bathing areas in respect of which the               section of railway to which the present action relates involves
      Commission requested more detailed information, Den-                the construction of a line for long-distance railway traffic in at
      mark has merely provided documentation stating that                 least two senses: duplication of the existing line and construc-
      the Danish rules, under which the number of sampling                tion of a new line in the municipal terminal of Benicassim.
      operations may be reduced by a factor of 2, that is to say,         The Commission considers that the fact that the General
      from 10 to 5, if the quality of the bathing water has, over         Development Plan for Benicassim was the subject of an impact
      the course of two successive bathing seasons, been of               assessment does not excuse the Spanish Government from
      better quality than that prescribed in the directive, had           subjecting the railway project to which the present action
      been complied with in three cases.                                  relates to the impact assessment procedure. Having regard to
                                                                          the lack of detail in which that Plan refers to the route of the
                                                                          Las Palmas-Oropesa railway section and the non-existence of
                                                                          studies into the effects of the project on the environment, a
(1) Council Directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of        specific environmental impact procedure was necessary in
    bathing water, OJ 1975 L 31, p. 1.                                    order to comply with the obligations arising under Directive
                                                                          85/337/EEC.
                                                                          Last, the Commission considers that the Environmental Impact
                                                                          Study drawn up in connection with the drafting of Amendment
                                                                          No 3 to the Construction Project not only covered only part
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.7.2001
of the project but also did not comply with Directive                     Action brought on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of
85/337/EEC, since Articles 5(2) and 6(2) of that directive were            the European Communities against the French Republic
not observed. First, in the procedure preceding the adoption
of the Study the file did not take account of the information
referred to in Article 5(2) of the directive (inter alia, the non-
technical summary of the information) and, second, the                                               (Case C-244/01)
information gathered was not made available to the public
before the Study was adopted, as required, in order to give
those concerned the opportunity to express an opinion.
                                                                                (2001/C 212/36)
(1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting as Agents, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
                           Luxembourg
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
                         (Case C-242/01)
                                                                          —     Declare that, by failing to transpose in full Article 4(2) of
                         (2001/C 212/35)                                        Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair
                                                                                terms in consumer contracts (1), the French Republic has
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 June 2001 by the Commission of the European                    —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Communities, represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
      to implement fully and properly the provisions required
      to transpose Article 4(3) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC
      of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
      package tours (1) in the Luxembourg legal system, the               The Commission points out that Article L-132-1, subpara-
      Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                  graph 7, of the French Code de la Consommation (Consumer
      obligations under that directive;                                   Affairs Code) does not contain the condition under which, in
                                                                          order to be excluded from assessment as to their potentially
—     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.               unfair nature, fundamental terms must be ‘in plain intelligible
                                                                          language’. The Commission takes the view that reference to
                                                                          the actual concept of unfair terms is not a sufficient guarantee
                                                                          to prevent application of certain unfair terms which define the
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          main subject-matter of the contract but which are drafted in
                                                                          unclear or unintelligible language.
The Commission takes the view that the directive was incor-
rectly transposed by Article 4 of the Grand-Ducal Regulation
of 4 November 1997 inasmuch as, by laying down a 21-day
period prior to departure, that article imposes unjustified
limitations on the right of transfer set out in Article 4(3) of the       (1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
directive.
(1) OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 59.


title: Case T-376/16: Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/40

         Action brought on 14 July 2016 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v SRB
   (Case T-376/16)
   (2016/C 343/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oberösterreichische Landesbank AG (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ as well as the first decision, apparently of 15 April 2016, which clearly is inextricably linked to the decision of 20 May 2016;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the ‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions of the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’ in so far as it orders that the repayment of the overpaid contribution in connection with the setting of the contribution for the Single Resolution Fund should occur in 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state reasons in the contested decision

               2.

               Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements due to a lack of full disclosure in the contested decision

               3.

               Third plea in law: insufficient correction of the contribution concerning the applicant for the Single Resolution Fund for 2016

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: illegality of the non-repayment of the overpaid contribution until 2017


title: Case C-256/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who need international protection — Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-256/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who need international protection - Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 153/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O’Reilly and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case C-78/09 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2009 by Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2008 in Case T-365/06 Bateaux mouches v OHIM

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/13

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2009 by Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2008 in Case T-365/06 Bateaux mouches v OHIM
   (Case C-78/09 P)
   2009/C 102/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Jean-Noël Castanet

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the appeal of Compagnie des bateaux mouches admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 December 2008 (Case T-365/06);

               —

               Order the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises two pleas in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, the appellant alleges breach by the Court of First Instance of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. (1) In that regard, it complains first that the Court of First Instance disregarded the intrinsic distinctive character which the mark had from the outset. Secondly, that distinctive character was even maintained and reinforced over time by the use made thereof by the appellant. The mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ is displayed on the boats used by the appellant — and by it alone — for tourist trips on the River Seine, the use of the terms ‘bateaux mouches’ on Internet search engines leads directly to the appellant’s website and the appellant has implemented an active policy of defending its mark against all abusive use.
   By its second plea, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted the criteria laid down by case-law enabling establishment of the acquisition by use of the distinctive character of the mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’. The factors capable of demonstrating the mark’s distinctive character, such as the market share held by the mark, the intensity, geographical spread and duration of the use of that mark, the size of the investment made by the company to promote it, the proportion in the relevant fields of those who identify the product or service as coming from a particular undertaking because of the mark, should have been examined, as a whole and not merely in part, by the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i Stockholm by order of that court of 17 December 1998 in the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB (Case C-473/98)

text:
C 71/12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               13.3.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i          Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
Stockholm by order of that court of 17 December 1998 in           of the European Communities against the Republic of
   the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB                                        Austria
                       (Case C-473/98)                                                   (Case C-475/98)
                        (1999/C 71/19)                                                    (1999/C 71/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of Kammarrätten i                   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
Stockholm of 17 December 1998, received at the Court              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Registry on 21 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in         on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
the case of Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB on            European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack and
the following question:                                           Frank Benyon, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                  Gómez de la Cruz, of the European Commission's Legal
Having regard to its aim, is a prohibition against the            Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
commercial use of trichloroethylene as described above a
measure which is compatible with Article 36 of the EC
Treaty and its application in Community law, even if it
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
contravenes Article 30 of the Treaty?
                                                                  1. Declare that, by having in 1995 individually
                                                                      negotiated, signed and entered into an Open Skies'
                                                                      agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector, the
                                                                      Republic of Austria acted in breach of its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                    under the EC Treaty, including Articles 5 and 52
Administratif de Lille (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of                thereof, and also contrary to the secondary law
that court of 19 November 1998 in the case of Clinique                adopted thereunder, in particular Council Regulation
GreÂgoire SA v Direction ReÂgionale des Impôts de                     (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of
                     Nord-Pas-de-Calais                               air carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)
                                                                      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers
                       (Case C-474/98)                                to intra-Community routes, Council Regulation (EEC)
                        (1999/C 71/20)                                No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for
                                                                      air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2)
                                                                      of 24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
                                                                      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                conduct for computerised reservation systems, and
European Communities by a judgment of the Fourth                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January
Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif (Administrative                 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at
Court), Lille, of 19 November 1998, which was received                Community airports;
at the Court Registry on 21 December 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Clinique GreÂgoire SA v
Direction ReÂgionale des Impôts de Nord-Pas-de-Calais, on
the following question:                                           2. In the alternative to part of the claim under (1),
                                                                      declare that:
Since they are regarded as reserving the exemption from
value added tax to transactions involving total human
                                                                      In so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded as
blood, are the provisions of Article 261 of the General
Tax Code compatible with the objectives laid down in                  having radically amended and thus replaced
Article 13(A)(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive                    agreements previously concluded, the Republic of
77/388/EEC (1) which provides that ¼ Member States                   Austria failed to comply with its obligations under
shall exempt the following under conditions which they                Article 234 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article 6
                                                                      of the Act of Accession, by not rescinding the
shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and
straightforward application of such exemptions . . . (d)              provisions contained in that agreement which are
supplies of human . . . blood', which must be understood              incompatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
                                                                      Article 52, and with the secondary law adopted
as including both total human blood and the components
thereof used separately and secondary products thereof?               thereunder, or by failing to take all legally possible
                                                                      steps to that end;
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                  3. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
                                                                      present proceedings.


title: Case T-309/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Cafè) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative trade mark Art’s Cafè — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Cafés Pont v EUIPO — Giordano Vini (Art’s Cafè)
   (Case T-309/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative trade mark Art’s Cafè - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1) and Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 293/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cafés Pont, SL (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giordano Vini SpA (Diano d’Alba, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1110/2015-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Giordano Vini and Cafés Pont.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cafés Pont, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-506/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014  — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark URB — Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)
   (Case T-506/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark URB - Earlier national collective word mark URB and earlier national collective figurative mark URB - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No breach of Article 72 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2014/C 462/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary) (represented by: G. Bozocea, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2013 (Case R 1309/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Harun Adiguzel.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs.

               3.

               Declares that Harun Adiguzel is to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 May 1998 in Case C-336/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Strasbourg): Mr and Mrs Robert Gilly v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin (Articles 6, 48 and 220 of the EC Treaty - Equal treatment - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Frontier workers)

text:
C 234/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58             proceedings pending before that court between Mr and
of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited         Mrs Robert Gilly and Directeur des Services Fiscaux du
liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of            Bas-Rhin Ð on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 and
their capital, with a view to making such safeguards                 220 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
equivalent (OJ L 26 of 30.1.1977, p. 1), and on the                  Rodríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, (Rapporteur)
abusive exercise of a right arising from a provision of              and R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
Community law, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez               Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M.                 Murray, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, L. Sevón and K. M.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, (Rapporteur), J. L.           General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.             Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in
Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;             which it has ruled:
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in which it has ruled:              1. The second indent of Article 220 of the EC Treaty
                                                                          does not have direct effect.
Community law does not preclude national courts from
applying a provision of national law in order to assess              2. On a proper construction, Article 48 of the EC Treaty
whether a right arising from a provision of Community                     does not preclude the application of provisions such as
law is being exercised abusively. However, where such an                  those in Articles 13(5)(a), 14(1) and 16 of the
assessment is made, a shareholder relying on Article 25(1)                Convention signed in Paris on 21 July 1959 between
of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of                              the French Republic and the Federal Republic of
13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which,                     Germany for the avoidance of double taxation, as
for the protection of the interests of members and others,                amended by the protocols signed in Bonn on 9 June
are required by Member States of companies within the                     1969 and 28 September 1989, under which the tax
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the                      regime applicable to frontier workers differs depending
Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited                     on whether they work in the private sector or the
liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of                 public sector and, where they work in the public
their capital, with a view to making such safeguards                      sector, on whether or not they have only the
equivalent, cannot be deemed to be abusing the right                      nationality of the State of the authority employing
arising from that provision merely because the increase in                them, and the regime applicable to teachers differs
capital contested by him has resolved the financial                       depending on whether their residence in the State in
difficulties threatening the existence of the company                     which they are teaching is for a short period or not.
concerned and has clearly ensured to his economic benefit,
or because he has not exercised his preferential right under         3. On a proper construction, Article 48 of the Treaty
Article 29(1) of that directive to acquire new shares issued              does not preclude the application of a tax credit
on the increase in capital at issue.                                      mechanism such as that provided for in
                                                                          Article 20(2)(a)(cc) of the said convention.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 12 May 1998                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
in Case C-336/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif, Strasbourg): Mr and Mrs                                         of 14 May 1998
Robert Gilly v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-
                                                                     in Case C-48/96 P: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
                            Rhin (1)
                                                                              Betriebs KG v Commission of the European
(Articles 6, 48 and 220 of the EC Treaty Ð Equal                                             Communities (1)
treatment Ð Bilateral convention for the avoidance of
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Financial support in the energy sector Ð
            double taxation Ð Frontier workers)
                                                                     Thermie programme Ð Right to full legal protection Ð
                         (98/C 234/10)                                Duty to state reasons Ð Right to a hearing Ð Discretion)
                                                                                (98/C 234/11)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-336/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif,                    In Case C-48/96 P: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
Strasbourg, France, for a preliminary ruling in the                  Betriebs KG, a company governed by German law,


title: Case T-158/17: Order of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/41

         Order of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB
   (Case T-158/17) (1)

   (2017/C 256/50)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 12 February 2004 in Case T-282/01: Aslantrans AG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/40

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   12 February 2004
   in Case T-282/01: Aslantrans AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Customs duties - Repayment of import duties - Shipment of cigarettes stolen during transport - Notion of special situation within the meaning of Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Compliance with the time-limit)
   (2004/C 94/116)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-282/01, Aslantrans AG, established in Rickenbach bei Wil (Switzerland), represented by J. Weigell, avocat, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially by R. Tricot and S. Fries, and subsequently by X. Lewis and S. Fries): Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/00 of 18 July 2001 refusing to grant an application by the Federal Republic of Germany for repayment of import duties in favour of the applicant, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 16.02.2003.


title: Case C-3/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Cagliari by order of that court of 12 November 2004 in the case of Gaetano Verdoliva against J.M. Van Der Hoeven B.N.

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Cagliari by order of that court of 12 November 2004 in the case of Gaetano Verdoliva against J.M. Van Der Hoeven B.N.
   (Case C-3/05)
   (2005/C 69/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello di Cagliari (Italy) of 12 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 6 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gaetano Verdoliva and J.M. Van Der Hoeven B.N. on the following questions:

               —

               ‘Does the Brussels Convention provide its own definition of notice of procedural documents or is that concept left to be defined by national rules?

               —

               Can it be inferred from the rules of the Brussels Convention, and in particular from Article 36 thereof, that the decision authorising enforcement referred to in Article 36 of the Convention may be the subject of acts equivalent to service?

               —

               Does notice of the decision authorising enforcement, in cases of failure of, or defective, service, none the less cause time to run for the purposes of the time-limit referred to in that article? If not, is the Brussels Convention to be interpreted as limiting the ways in which there may be found to be notice of the decision authorising enforcement?’


title: Case C-193/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield Magistrates' Court, by order of that Court of 21 May 1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume

text:
C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;


title: Case C-274/00 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2000 by Odette Simon against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/25
2.    Since the Turkish authorities were aware of the inaccuracy       Must Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
      of the content of the ATR certificates, which they               Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
      authenticated, is there no possibility of making the             Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by
      Turkish State liable for payment of the customs debt?            the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
3.    Since the Commission suspected or was aware of the
                                                                       amended version of the Convention at p. 77) and by the
      conduct of the Turkish authorities, referred to in point 2
                                                                       Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
      above, was the Commission under a duty to warn the
                                                                       Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), be interpreted as
      Community operators?
                                                                       meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State
                                                                       may, in another Contracting State, be sued, in matters relating
4.    Is breach of that possible duty such as to exonerate the         to a contract, in the courts for any of the places of performance
      (customs) declarants from liability where during all those       of the obligation in question, in particular where, consisting in
      years they acted in good faith in respect of the contents        an obligation not to do something — such as, in the present
      of their declarations?                                           case, an undertaking to act exclusively with another party to a
                                                                       contract with a view to submitting a joint tender in connection
                                                                       with a public contract and not to enter into a commitment
5.    Is the decision of the Commission and of the Portuguese          with another partner — that obligation is to be performed in
      customs authorities, on the advice of the former, to             any place whatever in the world?
      proceed to post-clearance recovery of the import duties
      valid without previously putting in motion the procedure
      provided for by Articles 22 and 25 of the EEC/Turkey
      Association Agreement (signed in Brussels on 23 Novem-           If not, may that defendant be sued specifically in the courts for
      ber 1970)?                                                       one of the places of performance of the obligation and, if so,
                                                                       by reference to what criterion must that place be determined?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                                                                       Appeal brought on 10 July 2000 by Odette Simon against
                                                                       the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel,              in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of the
Brussels (Fourth Chamber), by judgment of that court of                                   European Communities (1)
19 June 2000 in the case of S.A. Besix NV, formerly called
S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v WABAG
Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co                                               (Case C-274/00 P)
KG, a company incorporated under German law, and
Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W.
Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                                                (2000/C 233/49)
                       under German law
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by
                         (Case C-256/00)                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (Single Judge) in Case T- 177/97 Odette Simon v Commission
                         (2000/C 233/48)                               of the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July 2000 by
                                                                       Odette Simon, represented by J.-N. Louis and Véronique Peere,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d’Appel                 at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
(Court of Appeal), Brussels (Fourth Chamber), of 19 June
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A. Besix NV,           The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
formerly called S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v
WABAG Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH &
Co KG, a company incorporated under German law, and                    —     Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Planungs-        und     Forschungsgesellschaft     Dipl.    Ing.            the European Communities (Single Judge) of 10 May
W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                          2000 in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of
under German law, on the following question:                                 the European Communities;
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/26             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
—   Annul the Commission decision rejecting the appellant’s           Pleas in law and main arguments
    request that her administrative situation be regularised in
    accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to           By failing to determine whether the contractual conditions
    officials and other servants of the European Communities          imposed on the bodies entrusted with looking after the
    for the period from 15 May 1966 to 25 October 1995;               interests of staff by the High Authority and then by the
                                                                      Commission were in fact decided upon by reference solely to
                                                                      the needs of the service and not in order to evade application
                                                                      for the provisions of the Staff Regulations, the Court of First
—   Declare that the work done by the appellant between
                                                                      Instance erred in law.
    15 May 1966 and 25 October 1995 is to be regarded as
    having been performed under a contract between the                Similarly, it erred by not verifying whether the tasks performed
    Commission and a member of the temporary staff;                   by the appellant within the Information and Coordination
                                                                      Office were of such a nature as to fall within the scope of the
                                                                      permanent Community public service duties entrusted by the
—   Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings           Treaties to the institutions.
    before both the Court of First Instance and the Court of
    Justice.                                                          (1) OJ C 252 of 16 August 1997, p. 4.


title: Case C-474/99: Action brought on 14 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 47/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
Action brought on 14 December 1999 by the Commission                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                         van Beroep by decision of that court of 8 December 1999
                                Spain                                      in the case of H. Lommers against the Minister for
                                                                                Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries
                         (Case C-474/99)
                                                                                (Case C-476/99)
                          (2000/C 47/39)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/40)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice on 14 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Centrale Raad van
the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana,
                                                                           Beroep (Higher Social Security Court) of 8 December 1999,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 16 December 1999, for a
in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of H. Lommers against the
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries on
                                                                           the following question:
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                           Does Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1)
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures needed to                 of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
     ensure the proper incorporation into national law of the              equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
     obligation deriving from Article 2(1) and (2) (together with          employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
     Annex II) of Directive 85/337/EEC (1), and by keeping force           conditions preclude rules of an employer under which subsi-
     legislation which, in breach of those provisions, does not            dised child-care places are available only to female employees
     enable an assessment of the environmental effects of                  save where in respect of a male employee an emergency
     certain types of project referred to in Annex II to the               situation arises as determined by his employer.
     abovementioned directive to be carried out in any part of
     the national territory, or, in the case of many other projects
     listed in the same annex, in a considerable area of national          (1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.
     territory, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Directive 85/337/EEC;
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas and principal arguments                                              Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC must be interpreted in                                                 lic
the light of Article 2(1). Those provisions require the Member
States to analyse, in each specific case, the characteristics of                                     (Case C-484/99)
every project covered by Annex II. That analysis makes it
possible to determine whether, by virtue of their nature, size                                        (2000/C 47/41)
or location, an assessment of their environmental effects
should be undertaken. The second subparagraph of Article 4(2)              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
of the directive enables Member States to facilitate such                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
analyses by establishing criteria and/or thresholds. But in no             21 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
case is a Member State allowed, when transposing those                     Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal
provisions or establishing those criteria and/or thresholds,               Service, and Manuel Desantes, a civil servant on secondment
exempt in advance from analyses of that kind entire classes of             to its Legal Service under the scheme for national experts, with
projects listed in Annex II. After examining the legislation               an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
notified by the Spanish Government, the Commission has                     Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
concluded that, for the whole of Spanish territory, the                    Kirchberg.
legislation in force, whether national or of the autonomous
communities, excludes, comprehensively and definitively, the
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
obligation to subject to an assessment of environmental effects
numerous classes of projects of the kind referred to in Annex
                                                                           — declare that, by not adopting and not communicating to
II to the directive.
                                                                                the Commission within the time-limit laid down the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment              comply fully with Directive 96/9/EC of the European
    of the effects of certain public and private projects on the                Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 (1),
    environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).                                         relating to harmonisation of national provisions governing
                                                                                the legal protection of databases, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 February 2001 in Case C-350/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bremen, Germany): Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH (Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship — Length of normal daily or weekly work — Rules on overtime — Rules of evidence)

text:
16.6.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/5
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for a               —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
declaration that,                                                                  the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for the
                                                                                1988 and 1990 fishing years and by failing to ensure
                                                                                compliance with the Community rules on the conservation
                                                                                of species through adequate monitoring of fishing activities
                                                                                and through appropriate inspection of the fishing fleet,
—    by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for                    actual landings and catch records for both the 1988 and
     the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for the                         1990 fishing years;
     1988 and 1990 fishing years,
                                                                             —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying
                                                                                the French flag or registered in French territory in cases
                                                                                where the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the
                                                                                corresponding quota and, where relevant, by prohibiting
—    by failing to ensure compliance with the Community                            fishing after the corresponding quota had been largely
     rules on the conservation of species through adequate                         exceeded, in both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years;
     monitoring of fishing activities and through appropriate
     inspection of the fishing fleet, actual landings and catch                    and
     records for both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
                                                                             —     by failing, as regards the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
                                                                                to take penal or administrative action against any master
                                                                                or other person responsible for fishing after imposition of
                                                                                a fishing ban,
—    by not temporarily prohibiting, in both the 1988 and
     1990 fishing years, fishing by vessels flying the French                the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     flag or registered in French territory at times when                    Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
     the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the                      25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for
     corresponding quota, and by finally prohibiting fishing at              the conservation and management of fishery resources, in
     a time when the corresponding quota had been largely                    conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
     exceeded,                                                               No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
                                                                             measures for fishing activities, under Article 11(2) of Regu-
                                                                             lation No 2241/87, and under Article 5(2) of Regulation
                                                                             No 170/83 in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Regulation
                                                                             No 2241/87;
     and
                                                                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
—    by failing, for the 1988 and 1990 fishing years, to take
     penal or administrative action against any master or other
     person responsible for fishing after a prohibition had
     been imposed,
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 February 2001
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       in Case C-350/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
                                                                       the Arbeitsgericht Bremen, Germany): Wolfgang Lange v
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the
                                                                                Georg Schünemann GmbH (1)
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983
L 24, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council               (Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing               employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions
certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207,        applicable to the contract or employment relationship —
p. 1), under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87, and               Length of normal daily or weekly work — Rules on overtime
under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 in conjunction                                       — Rules of evidence)
with Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                                            (2001/C 173/08)
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann
and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which
it:
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-350/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
1.   Declares that:                                                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             16.6.2001
Bremen for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
before that court between Wolfgang Lange and Georg Schüne-
mann GmbH — on the interpretation of Council Directive
91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation                                               (Second Chamber)
to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the
contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288 p. 32)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola                                                of 14 February 2001
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 February 2001, in which                in Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
it has ruled:
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                not contested — Directive 95/16/EC)
1.    Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October
      1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the
      conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship
      must be interpreted as not relating to the working of overtime.                                     (2001/C 173/09)
      However, it is clear from Article 2(1) of that Directive that the
      employer is obliged to notify the employee of any term having
      the nature of an essential element of the contract or employment
      relationship and requiring the employee to work overtime                                     (Language of the case: French)
      whenever requested to do so by his employer. That information
      must be notified under the same conditions as those laid down
      by the Directive for the elements expressly mentioned in
      Article 2(2) thereof. It may, where appropriate, by analogy           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      with the rule which applies, in particular, to normal working                               in the European Court Reports)
      hours by virtue of Article 2(3) of the Directive, take the form of
      a reference to the relevant laws, regulations and administrative
      or statutory provisions or collective agreements.                     In Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: H. van Lier) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                                                                            Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                            by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
2.    No provision of Directive 91/533 requires an essential element        provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament
      of the contract or employment relationship that has not been          and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the
      mentioned in a written document delivered to the employee or          approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      has not been mentioned therein with sufficient precision to be        lifts (OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to
      regarded as inapplicable.                                             fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Second
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
3.    Where an employer fails to comply with his obligation under           on 14 February 2001, in which it:
      Directive 91/533 to provide information, that directive does
      not require the national court to apply, or refrain from applying,
      principles of national law under which the proper taking of           1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      evidence is deemed to have been obstructed where a party to the              the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      proceedings has not complied with his legal obligations to                   comply with European Parliament and Council Directive
      provide information.                                                         95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to lifts, the French Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-148/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/31
The applicant maintains, in any event, that, at the time of his       22 February 1993 , despite the declaration of annulment in
recruitment, he possessed exceptional qualifications                  the abovementioned judgment.
justifying, in accordance with the judgment in Alexopoulou,
recruitment to a higher grade within the career bracket.              In support of his claims, he alleges breach of Articles 26 and
                                                                      35 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 176 and 179 of
                                                                      the Treaty of Rome, and of general principles of law, such as
                                                                      that conferring the authority of res judicata on a final
                                                                      decision against which no appeal lies . In his view, in
                                                                      confirming a decision which had been annulled and by
                                                                      taking no notice of the conditions for complying with the
Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri              judgment and the consequences necessarily entailed, the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  contested decision did not comply with the operative part of
                         Case T-148/96 )                              the judgment of 8 June 1995 in Case T-583/93 P v. the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities .
                          ( 96/C 354/61 )
                                                                      In that respect, the applicant considers that the appointing
                (Language of the case: French)                        authority did not take the contested decision in the interests
                                                                      of the service or its organization , but misused its powers in
                                                                      order to inflict a disguised disciplinary penalty on the
An action against the Commission of the European                      applicant.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
Brognieri, residing at Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric         His final allegation against the defendant is that his personal
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         file does not contain all the documents concerning his
Luxembourg at the chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort            administrative status, since material used by the
Rheinsheim .                                                          Commission to support its case has neither been
                                                                      communicated to the applicant nor included in his personal
                                                                      file, which demonstrates the existence of a parallel file .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of 28 November 1995 in which the
    appointing authority informed the applicant that it
    confirmed the decision of 22 February 1993
    withdrawing him from shift-work in the fire service and
    that he could not be reinstated in the fire station , even to     Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan
    work days,                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 50/96
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of Lit                                       ( 96/C 354/62 )
    2 000 000 by way of compensation for non-material
    damage , together with interest at the rate prescribed by
    law of 8 % as from the date of the decision to be given                           (Language of the case: French)
    until full payment is made,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages and             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    interest corresponding to the sums which he ought to              Instance of the European Communities on 24 September
    have    received  as     shift work   allowance    as   from
                                                                      1 996 by Austin Rowan, residing at Overijse , represented by
    28 November 1995 , the date of the contested decision ,          Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for
    until a valid and lawful decision regularizing his                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Evelyne Korn,
    administrative situation is adopted, together with               21 Rue Nassau .
    default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum to run from
    22 February 1996 , the date on which the applicant
    lodged his complaint,                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — annul the Commission 's decision of 25 October 1995
                                                                           inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade B 5 and, in so far as
                                                                           necessary, the Commission 's decision of 19 June 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        rejecting his complaint of 20 February 1996 ,
The applicant, who is employed by the defendant as a                 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
fireman at the Ispra Centre, is the same as in Case T-583/93 ,
which was settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 annulling the
decision of the appointing authority of 22 February 1993 ,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by which the applicant had been excluded from shift work in
the fire-fighting service . This action challenges the decision      The applicant, an official in Grade B 4 at the Commission,
of the defendant institution confirming the decision of              challenges the refusal of the appointing authority to review


title: Case C-412/12: Action brought on 11 September 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/24

         Action brought on 11 September 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-412/12)
   2012/C 366/43
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and D. Düsterhaus, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, because not all the sites for the uncontrolled landfill of waste that operated on Cypriot territory have been decommissioned or been rendered compliant with the requirements of the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               According to Article 14 of Directive 1999/31, existing landfill sites already in operation at the time of transposition of the directive may continue to operate only if the steps required by the European legislation are accomplished by 16 July 2009; otherwise their operation must cease.

               —

               The Cypriot authorities themselves acknowledge that, of the 115 sites for the uncontrolled landfill of waste (which because of the ‘uncontrolled’ nature of the waste disposal and management, do not fulfil the criteria of Article 14 of Directive 99/31 so as to be able to continue to operate) formerly operating on Cypriot territory, two remain in operation in the districts of Nicosia and Limassol and they are not expected to be decommissioned before the middle of 2015 or the beginning of 2016.

               —

               A certain improvement has been noted as regards waste management in Cypriot territory, but that occurred after a substantial delay since, under Article 14 of Directive 99/31, the necessary steps should have been completed by 16 July 2009, despite that, as the Cypriot authorities accept, two sites for the uncontrolled landfill of waste continue to operate without control and therefore the infringement of Article 14 of the directive remains, and is not expected to cease at least for the next three years.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.