title: Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-330/97)

text:
C 357/ 14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 11 . 97
     'Taxofit Vitamin C + Ca effervescent pills' and                      the European Communities on 23 September 1997 by the
     'Taxofit Vitamin C chewable pills' are to be assigned                Portuguese Republic, represented by Joao Mota de
     to heading 3004 ('medicaments . . . consisting of                    Campos, Dr Luis Fernandes and Dr Maria Luisa Duarte,
     mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic or                         acting as Agents, with an adress for service in
      prophylactic uses, put up in . . . forms or packings for            Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy 33 Allee Scheffer.
      retail sale'), when they contain 1 000 mg and 500 mg
      of Vitamin C ( ascorbic acid ) per pill respectively, are
      imported in packings for retail sale, are to be used —
      according to the information on use which is                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
      contained in the leaflets enclosed with the packs and
      indicates a specific dose — inter alia 'to build up
      resistance: for colds and influenza infections, . . . and           — annul Commission Decision C(97) 2130 Final of 9 July
      allergic processes' and ' as a prophylactic at times of                 1997 on the measures taken by Portugal for the
      increased risk of infection' respectively, and are                      benefit of EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimenta^ao e
      authorized as medicinal products in the Federal                         Cereais SA,
      Republic of Germany ?
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
tungsgericht by order of that court of 15 July 1997 in the
                 case of Sezgin Ergat v. Stadt Ulm
                          ( Case C-329/97 )
                                                                          — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
                             ( 97/C 357/25 )                                   ( contradictory and inadequate statement of reasons for
                                                                              the decision ).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesverwal
tungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court ) of 15 July                  — Infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                             guarantee granted by the Portuguese Government for
22 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                     financing by the banks of Esc 30 billion intended to
Sezgin Ergat v. Stadt Ulm on the following question:                          convert EPAC's short-term debts into medium-term
                                                                               liabilities does not constitute State aid to EPAC . The
                                                                              granting of a guarantee to what is no more than an
Does a Turkish national who has entered the country as a
                                                                               operation for the restructuring of the debts of a public
member of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered
                                                                               undertaking does not involve any transfer of resources
as belonging to the labour force, without requiring a                          from the State to that undertaking. The rate of interest
residence permit in accordance with the national law on                        on the loans negotiated between EPAC and the
foreigners in force at the date of entry, and has
                                                                               international consortium of banks reflects only the
subsequently been in possession of residence permits with                      desire on the part of the credit institutions involved to
interruptions, but who has applied for extension of his last                   make viable a financing operation whose objective was
residence permit 26 days after its expiry, satisfy the
                                                                               the restructuring of debts which had previously been
conditions in the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision
                                                                               short-term, posing a threat to EPAC's solvency and
No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council that he
                                                                               thus to the repayment of those banks ' credits, into
has been ' legally resident' there 'for at least three years'                  long-term liabilities.
( first indent) or 'for at least five years' ( second indent ), if
the     national    authorities     have  refused   to   extend  the
residence permit ?
                                                                               EPAC is an exclusively public capital undertaking. It is
                                                                               for the State, as the owner of the whole of the capital,
                                                                               therefore, to ensure it can continue to attain the
                                                                               general interest objectives it was created to achieve, in
                                                                               particular, the purpose of guaranteeing the purchase of
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Portuguese                          cereals from Portuguese farmers and the country's
       Republic against the Commission of the European                         supply of an essential basic good. The Portuguese
                               Communities                                      State, both in its capacity as sole shareholder and as
                                                                               administrator of the public interest, has both the right
                           ( Case C-330/97 )                                    and the exclusive obligation to support EPAC. By
                              ( 97/C 357/26 )                                   offering concrete support by granting the guarantee,
                                                                                the State did not place EPAC at an economic or
                                                                                financial advantage which it might not have obtained
 An action against the Commission of the European                               under the basic rule of the private investor operating
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                         in a market economy.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97            ENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 357/ 15
     The State did not grant EPAC any aid. It merely                       how retaining the aid until a judicial decision is given
     corrected in very moderate terms and in some small                    could result in damage to competitors which could not
     measure the consequences of its earlier behaviour                     be made good, in the event that they were proven to
     which had seriously harmed the undertaking. When                      exist, by means of an action for compensation brought
     the Portuguese Government set up SILOPOR it did                       against the Portuguese State, in the event that it was
     not provide it with the sufficient capital for it to pay              found that it acted contrary to the Community system
     to EPAC the value of the assets transferred from one                  of State aid .
     to the other. It would have sufficed for SILOPOR to
     have paid its debt to EPAC for the latter not to have
     needed at all the State's guarantee and to re-establish
     totally its financial equilibrium .                               — It is not possible in law for the Portuguese State to
                                                                           adopt the measure imposed by the Commission by
                                                                           way of the contested decision .
— Infringement of Articles 222 and 90 of the EC Treaty
     ( arbitrary discrimination between public and private             — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations: the
     undertakings ): even supposing that the guarantee did                 reasons underlying the grant by the Portuguese State
     constitute State aid under Article 92 ( 1 ), the measure
                                                                           of the guarantee for the operation to consolidate
     would be justified under Article 90 (2 ) of the EC                    EPAC's bank debts, which are directly related to its
     Treaty. EPAC does not just import and market cereals.                 liability in respect of the situation concerning
     Its activity in this field is important enough in terms of            SILOPOR, which is unable to pay its own debt to
     the general economic interest, given the large volume                 EPAC, are sufficient to give rise to a legitimate
     of the cereal imported to supply the country. However,                expectation on the part of EPAC and the creditor
     the undertaking also ( i ) supplies seed, fertilizer and              banks that the guarantee is lawful.
     plant protection products to the Portuguese agriculture
     industry; ( ii ) purchases cereals from the Portuguese
     producers, the majority of whom are smallholders
     who thus overcome the difficulties of marketing
     their cereal; ( iii ) provides services to industry and
     agriculture such as, for example, laboratory facilities,
     technical assistance for agricultural production, acting
     as intermediary for harvest insurance and financing,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
     crop spraying, storage, drying and measuring of the               Gelsenkirchen, by order of that court of 29 August 1997,
     cereal .
                                                                       in the case of Susanne Lewen v. Lothar Denda, as
                                                                                proprietor of the Firm Denda Zahntechnik
                                                                                ( Case C-333/97)
— Infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the
     guarantee did not have the effect of distorting                                           ( 97/C 357/27 )
     competition or affecting intra-Community trade . The
     mere setting out of statistics showing the existence of
     commercial exchange between Portugal and the
     European Community in the cereal sector cannot be                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     accepted as sufficient evidence .                                 European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                       ( Labour Court) Gelsenkirchen, Third Chamber, of
                                                                       29 August 1997, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       24 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
— Infringement of Article 93 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty: the         Susanne Lewen v. Lothar Denda, as proprietor of the firm
     arguments put forward by the Commission to refrain                Denda Zahntechnik, on the following questions :
     from applying the exemptions under Article 92 ( 3 ), in
     particular those in subparagraph ( c ), are inadequate
     and contrary to the guidelines, defined by the
     Commission itself, which were considered admissible               1 . Is a Christmas bonus 'pay' within the meaning of
     in the Community's case-law. The Commission did not                   Article 119 of the EC Treaty or 'payment' within the
     accept the justification that the guarantee was                       meaning of Article 11 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 92/85/
     emergency aid basing its opinion on serious and                       EEC (') for work performed in the year in which the
     blatant errors of fact and of law, and by failing to                  bonus is awarded even where it is given by the
     adduce any evidence as to whether the common                          employer mainly or exclusively as an incentive for
     interest was adversely affected, did not fully exclude                future work and/or loyalty to the firm . Is it to be
     the application of the exemptions under Article 92 ( 3 )              regarded as in the nature of pay or payment at least
     ( c ).                                                                where the employer has not announced prior to the
                                                                           beginning of the year of the award that at Chistmas in
                                                                           the following year he intends to relate it exclusively to
                                                                           the performance of future work and so to exclude
— Breach of the principle of proportionality: inasmuch as                  from the payment employees whose employment
     withdrawal of the aid would produce immediate and,                    relationship at the time of payment and thereafter are
     as regards EPAC, irreversible damage, it is hard to see               in abeyance ?


title: Case C-143/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/73/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-143/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/73/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 113/20
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to give effect to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-468/99: Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 34/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.2.2000
In those circumstances, the Commission finds that the Italian               United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community               that Directive, and
law.
                                                                       — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
(3) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
                                                                       Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
                                                                       a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                       upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                       on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                       laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 March
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Commission                    1998 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
                                                                       visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
of the European Communities against the United
                                                                       the conclusions of the Commission.
                            Kingdom
                        (Case C-468/99)                                (1) on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated
                                                                           terphenyls (PCB/PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
                         (2000/C 34/37)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          Removal from the register of Case C-90/99 (1)
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                                     (2000/C 34/38)
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.
                                                                       By order of 22 October 1999 the President of the Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-90/99: Commission of the
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                       European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 (1) or
    in any event not informing the Commission thereof, the             (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case C-506/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Gerd Schini v Land Berlin

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Gerd Schini v Land Berlin
   (Case C-506/12)
   2013/C 26/58
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gerd Schini

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land civil servants?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?

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


title: Case C-175/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright — Rental and lending right — Exclusive public lending right — Derogation — Condition of remuneration — Exemption — Scope)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-175/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright - Rental and lending right - Exclusive public lending right - Derogation - Condition of remuneration - Exemption - Scope)
   (2007/C 42/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, E. Regan SC, J. Gormley, Advisory Counsel)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: I. del Cuvillo Contreras, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 6) — Derogation from the exclusive public lending right — Scope
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by exempting all categories of public lending establishments, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, from the obligation to remunerate authors for the lending carried out by them, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;

               2)

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-681/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 27 December 2011 — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Schenker & Co AG and Others

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 27 December 2011 — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Schenker & Co AG and Others
   (Case C-681/11)
   2012/C 89/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt

      Respondents: Schenker & Co AG, ABX Logistics (Austria) GmbH, Logwin Invest Austria GmbH, Logwin Road + Rail Austria GmbH, Alpentrans Spedition und Transport GmbH, Kapeller Internationale Spedition GmbH, Johann Strauss GmbH, Wildenhofer Spedition und Transport GmbH, DHL Express (Austria) GmbH, G. Englmayer Spedition GmbH, Internationale Spedition Schneckenreither Gesellschaft mbH, Leopold Schöffl GmbH & Co KG, Express-Interfracht Internationale Spedition GmbH, Rail Cargo, A. Ferstl Speditionsgesellschaft mbH, Spedition, Lagerei und Beförderung von Gütern mit Kraftfahrzeugen Alois Herbst GmbH & Co KG, Johann Huber Spedition und Transportgesellschaft mbH, Keimelmayr Speditions- u. Transport GmbH, ‘Spedpack’-Speditions- und Verpackungsgessellschaft mbH, Thomas Spedition GmbH, Koch Spedition GmbH, Maximilian Schludermann, in his capacity as insolvency administrator for the assets of Kubicargo Spedition GmbH, Kühne + Nagel GmbH, Lagermax Internationale Spedition Gesellschaft mbH, Morawa Transport GmbH, Johann Ogris Internationale Transport- und Speditions GmbH, Traussnig Spedition GmbH, Treu SpeditionsgesmbH, Spedition Anton Wagner GmbH, Gebrüder Weiss GmbH, Marehard u. Wuger Internat. Speditions- u. Logistik GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               May breaches of Article 101 TFEU committed by an undertaking be penalised by means of a fine in the case where the undertaking erred with regard to the lawfulness of its conduct and that error is unobjectionable?
               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

                           1a.

                           Is an error with regard to the lawfulness of conduct unobjectionable in the case where the undertaking acts in accordance with advice given by a legal adviser experienced in matters of competition law and the erroneous nature of the advice was neither obvious nor capable of being identified through the scrutiny which the undertaking could be expected to exercise?

                           1b.

                           Is an error with regard to the lawfulness of conduct unobjectionable in the case where the undertaking has expectations as to the correctness of a decision taken by a national competition authority which examined the conduct under review solely on the basis of national competition law and found it to be permissible?

               2.

               Are the national competition authorities competent to declare that an undertaking participated in a cartel which infringes European Union competition law in a case where no fine is to be imposed on the undertaking on the ground that it has requested to be heard as a cooperative witness?


title: Case C-435/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(2)(b) and (5) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Reproduction for private use — Lawful nature of the origin of the copy — Directive 2004/48/EC — Scope)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding
   (Case C-435/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) and (5) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Reproduction for private use - Lawful nature of the origin of the copy - Directive 2004/48/EC - Scope))
   2014/C 175/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ACI Adam BV, Alpha International BV, AVC Nederland BV, B.A.S. Computers & Componenten BV, Despec BV, Dexxon Data Media and Storage BV, Fuji Magnetics Nederland, Imation Europe BV, Maxell Benelux BV, Philips Consumer Electronics BV, Sony Benelux BV, Verbatim GmbH

      Defendants: Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 5(2) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) and of Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Legal costs — Scope

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               EU law, in particular Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in conjunction with paragraph 5 of that article, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not distinguish the situation in which the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful from that in which that source is unlawful.

               2)

               Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings, such as those in the main proceedings, in which those liable for payment of the fair compensation bring an action before the referring court for a ruling against the body responsible for collecting that remuneration and distributing it to copyright holders, which defends that action.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22. 12. 2012.


title: Case C-159/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Gerhard Fuchs v Land Hessen

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/24

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Gerhard Fuchs v Land Hessen
      (Case C-159/10)
      (2010/C 161/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gerhard Fuchs

         Defendant: Land Hessen

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are the rules laid down in the Hessisches Beamtengesetz (Civil Service Law of the Land of Hessen) on what is in principle the compulsory retirement age for civil servants based on an aim in the public interest in accordance with standards of Union law?
                  The following main questions arise in this respect:

                              What specific requirements in Union law should such an aim prescribed in the public interest satisfy? What additional issues relating to the clarification of the facts of the case should the referring court consider?

                              Does an interest in saving budgetary resources and labour costs, in the present context by avoiding the recruitment of new staff and so reducing expenditure on personnel, represent a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC? (1)

                              Can an employer’s aim of enjoying a degree of planning certainty as regards the retirement of civil servants be recognised as a legitimate aim in the public interest, even if every employer governed by the Hessiches Beamtengesetz or the Beamtenstatusgesetz (Law on the Status of Civil Servants) may develop and implement staff management ideas of his own?

                              Can an interest in a ‘favourable age stratification’ or ‘favourable age structure’ be recognised as an aim in the public interest, despite the absence of general standards or statutory rules on what constitutes a correct age stratification or age structure?

                              Can an interest in creating opportunities for the promotion of civil servants already in place be regarded as a legitimate aim in the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

                              Does the adoption of rules on retirement ages to preclude individual legal disputes with older employees over their continued fitness for service constitute the pursuit of a legitimate aim in the public interest?

                              Does the reference to the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC presuppose a labour market policy concept extending beyond individual employers in the area of employment, and if so, how uniform and binding must it be?

                              Is it in fact possible for individual employers to pursue aims in the public interest for groups of employees, limited here to civil servants governed by the Hessisches Beamtengesetz, with retirement age rules of such limited scope?

                              Under what conditions can the aim, which can be pursued by individual employers, but is not mandatory, of occupying posts vacated by retired employees with new recruits, where necessary after existing employees have been promoted, be regarded as being in the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC? Must the reference to the public interest be backed not only by general claims that the rules serve that purpose, but also by statistics or other findings from which it can be inferred that such an aim is sufficiently serious and can actually be achieved?

                  2.

                  What specific requirements should be satisfied by the reasonableness and suitability of a retirement age arrangement within the meaning of the rules laid down in the Hessisches Beamtengesetz?
                  Are more thorough investigations needed to determine the ratio of the — probable — number of civil servants remaining in service voluntarily after retirement age to the number who wish to receive a full pension on reaching retirement age, if not earlier, and therefore certainly want to leave the service? Would it not be appropriate in this respect to give voluntary retirement preference over compulsory retirement, provided that arrangements are made for pensions to be reduced where they are taken before the set retirement age is reached so as to preclude unreasonable pension budget spending and associated labour costs (voluntary departure rather than compulsion as the more appropriate and, in effect, hardly less suitable arrangement)?
                  Can it be deemed reasonable and necessary to assume it to be irrefutable that all civil servants cease to be fit for service on reaching a given higher age, such as 65 years in this case, and so automatically to terminate their employment as civil servants at that age?
                  Is it reasonable for the possibility to remain employed in the civil service at least until the age of 68 years to be entirely dependent on the employer having special interests, but for employment in the civil service to be terminated with no legal possibility of securing reappointment where no such interests exist?
                  Does a retirement age arrangement which leads to compulsory retirement, rather than being confined to specifying the conditions for entitlement to a full pension, as permitted under Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, result in an unreasonable devaluation of the interests of older people relative to the fundamentally no more valuable interests of younger people?
                  If the aim of facilitating recruitment and/or promotion is deemed to be legitimate, what more precise requirements must actually be satisfied to demonstrate the extent to which such opportunities are actually seized by each employer taking advantage of the retirement age arrangement or by all employers, in and outside the general labour market, to whom the statutory arrangement applies?
                  In view of the gaps already to be seen in the labour market owing to demographic trends and of the impending need for skilled staff of all kinds, including staff for the public service of the Federal German and Land governments, is it reasonable and necessary to force civil servants able and willing to continue working to retire from the civil service at a time when there will soon be a major demand for personnel which the labour market will hardly be able to meet? Will it possibly be necessary in the future to collect sectoral labour market data?

                  3.

                  What requirements need to be met as regards the coherence of Hessen’s and possibly Federal German legislation on retirement ages?
                  Can the relationship between Paragraph 50(1) und Paragraph 50(3) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz be regarded as consistent if the possibility in principle of remaining in employment beyond retirement age depends entirely on the employer’s interests?
                  Should Paragraph 50(3) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz possibly be interpreted to mean, in compliance with the Directive, that, to preclude unreasonable discrimination on the grounds of age, employment must always continue unless service factors prevent this? What requirements should then be satisfied to prove the existence of any such factors? Must it be assumed in this respect that the interests of the service require continued employment if only because unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of age would otherwise occur?
                  How might advantage be taken of such an interpretation of Paragraph 50(3) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz for a continuation or resumption of the applicant’s employment as a civil servant, even though that employment has meanwhile been terminated? Should, in that case, Paragraph 50(1) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz remain inapplicable at least until the age of 68 years?
                  Is it reasonable and necessary, on the one hand, to impede the taking of voluntary retirement at the age of 60 or 63 years, with a permanent reduction in pension, and, on the other hand, to rule out the voluntary continuation of employment after the age of 65 years unless the employer has, by way of exception, a special interest in its continuation?
                  Do the rules on retirement ages laid down in Paragraph 50(1) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz cease to be reasonable and necessary as a result of the more favourable rules on part-time work on the grounds of age on the one hand and fixed-term civil servants on the other?
                  What significance for coherence can be attributed to the various rules laid down in employment (public and private sector) and social insurance law which, first, are seeking permanently to raise the age at which a full pension can be drawn, second, prohibit the termination of employment on the grounds that the age specified for the standard retirement pension has been reached and, third, make it compulsory for employment to terminate when that precise age is reached?
                  Is it relevant to coherence that the gradual raising of retirement ages in the social insurance and civil service law relating to the Federal German authorities and some Länder primarily serves the interests of employees in delaying as long as possible the need to meet the more stringent requirements for a full retirement pension? Are these questions insignificant because retirement ages have not yet been raised for civil servants governed by the Hessisches Beamtengesetz, although this is due to become effective in the near future in the case of employees in employment relationships?

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


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 1999 in Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Recovery of post-clearance customs duties — Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 79/3
1. Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment                               ORDER OF THE COURT
     of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 1998 in Joined
     Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95 DIR International Film and
     Others v Commission;                                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                of 9 December 1999
3. Reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.                                                   in Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo
                                                                             Gadus Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Recovery of post-clearance customs duties —
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2454/93 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and mani-
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                festly unfounded)
                      of 26 November 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 79/06)
in Case C-192/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte dei Conti): ex post facto review proceedings
against Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade
                              (ANAS) (1)                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
(Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Definition of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ —
Directive 92/50/EC — Procedures for the award of public                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         service contracts)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                           (2000/C 79/05)
                                                                             In Case C-299/98 P: CPL Imperial 2 SpA, established in
                                                                             Pescara, Italy, and Unifrigo Gadus Srl, established in Naples,
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          Italy, represented by G. Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                             G. Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II — appeal against the judgment
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Third Chamber) of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-10/97 and
                                                                             T-11/97 Unifrigo Gadus and CPL Imperial 2 v Commission
In Case C-192/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                [1998] ECR II-2231, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte dei Conti                  the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the ex post facto review                 European Communities (Agent: P. Stancanelli) — the Court
proceedings pending before that court against Azienda Nazion-                of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward
ale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS) on the interpretation of                    (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 9 December 1999, in
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court, composed of                     which it:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presi-               1. Dismisses the appeal;
dents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   2. Orders CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl to pay the
Registrar, has made an order on 26 November 1999, the                             costs.
operative part of which is as follows:
The Court does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions raised
by the Corte dei Conti in its decision for reference of 7 April 1998.        (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case C-320/05 P: Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — Fred Olsen SA v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — State aid — Maritime transport — Maritime cabotage — Existing aid — New aid — Aid that may be declared compatible with the common market — Service of general economic interest — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/28

         Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — Fred Olsen SA v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-320/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Maritime transport - Maritime cabotage - Existing aid - New aid - Aid that may be declared compatible with the common market - Service of general economic interest - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 51/46)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Fred Olsen SA (represented by R. Marín Correa, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J.L. Buendía Sierra and R. Vidal Puig, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 June 2005 in Case T-17/02 Olsen v Commission, in which the Court rejected the action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 25 July 2001 relating to State aid file NN 48/2001 — Spain — Aid for the Transmediterránea shipping company (OJ 2002 C 96, p. 4)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Fred Olsen SA to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271 of 29.10.2005.


title: Case T-168/11: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2014  — AQ v Parliament (Action for compensation — Compensation for damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition — Request to initiate an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/16

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2014 — AQ v Parliament
   (Case T-168/11) (1)

   ((Action for compensation - Compensation for damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition - Request to initiate an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 056/22)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: AQ (Żary, Poland) (represented by: P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition requesting the opening of an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr AQ is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

               3.

               The amount of the legal aid to be paid by the cashier of the General Court is fixed at EUR 1  653,36.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case F-66/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Kyriazi v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Kyriazi v Commission
   (Case F-66/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 340/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kalliopi Kyriazi (Clabecq, Belgium) (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, initally, by C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, and subsequently by K. Herrmann and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the 12 September 2005 appointing the applicant a probationary official in Grade C*1, step 2, and of all measures consecutive and/or relating thereto, such as the decision to withdraw and not re-establish her secretarial allowance after her establishment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mrs Kyriazi and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178 of 29.07.06, p. 43.


title: Case C-324/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-324/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an ‘irregular composition’ within the meaning of product code 0207 1290 9990 characterised by the fact that a maximum total number of four of the giblets there stated may be — singly or more than once — inserted inside the carcase?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative: does subheading 0207 12 10 (1) also cover carcases inside which one of the giblets stated in that subheading has been inserted more than once?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 322, p. 31.


title: Case F-35/15: Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/52

         Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-35/15)
   (2015/C 146/73)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to take further action on the request for assistance made by the applicant even though he was under investigation for misappropriation of funds accruing to the Community budget.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting complaint No R/865/14 submitted by the applicant on 5 August 2014;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, to be adjusted if necessary;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-791/14: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 — Bensarsa v Commission and EDPS

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/43

         Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 — Bensarsa v Commission and EDPS
   (Case T-791/14) (1)

   (2015/C 205/59)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-69/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 February 2015 — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 February 2015 — Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
   (Case C-69/15)
   (2015/C 138/53)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L.

      Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must a shipment of waste be considered to be effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1), when the person who arranges the shipment completes the boxes corresponding to the importer/consignee, the recovery facility and the countries/States concerned — in entries 2, 7 and 11 respectively of the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation — in a manner whereby those entries conflict with one another, even though the information relating to those entries is clearly apparent from the international consignment note and other documents available?

               2)

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can a fine imposed on that ground, equal in amount to that imposed on a person infringing the obligation to complete the document set out in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, be considered proportionate?

               3)

               In order for a shipment of waste to be declared illegal, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, must the person completing the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation deliberately mislead the authorities?

               4)

               Is the fact that the information or data not actually specified is significant as regards environmental protection a relevant factor in order to declare that a shipment of waste, effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, is illegal? If the answer is in the affirmative, what information or data of the document set out in Annex VII to that regulation must be considered significant as regards environmental protection?

               5)

               Can a transfer of waste be found to be effected ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the document set out in Annex VII’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(g)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, where the authority does not carry out the procedure laid down in Article 24 of that regulation, does not inform the authorities concerned and does not order the illegally shipped waste to be taken back?

               6)

               How must jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 be understood and examined?

               7)

               How must the expression in paragraph 15 of Part IV of Annex IC to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, which states that in order for dealers or brokers to be consignees they must be under the jurisdiction of the country of destination, be interpreted?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 30 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-481/98)

text:
C 48/20               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
While the Greek authorities have transposed Directive              withholding tax which is levied at source from the party
90/675/EEC into national law, they have not adopted the            making the income payments. However, the Belgian State
measures needed in order for Articles 3 and 4 of that              has waived the withholding tax on the interest payable on
directive to be capable of being applied since they have           the loan in the present case. According to the Belgian
not yet laid down at national level the fees for the               State, it is necessary to exclude Belgian residents from the
veterinary and administrative checks, such fees being              issue, in order to prevent such persons from evading tax
necessary for the application of those provisions.                 by not declaring the interest received.
(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                    The fiscal reasons advanced cannot justify the restriction
                                                                   in question.
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 Action brought on 30 December 1998 by the Commission
                           Belgium                                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
                       (Case C-478/98)                                                    (Case C-481/98)
                        (1999/C 48/32)                                                     (1999/C 48/33)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               An action against the French Republic was brought before
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
on 21 December 1998 by the Commission of the                       30 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
European Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard              Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, acting as
and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as                Agent, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                  Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that by introducing and maintaining in force
                                                                       rules on value added tax whereby medicaments
Ð declare that, by prohibiting the acquisition by persons              reimbursable by the social security are taxed at the
    resident in Belgium of certificates relating to a loan             rate of 2,1 %, whereas other medicaments are taxed at
    issued abroad, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                the reduced rate of 5,5 %, the French Republic has
    fulfil its obligations under Article 73(b) of the EC               failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12
    Treaty;                                                            of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (Sixth VAT
                                                                       Directive) (1);
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Pursuant to a Royal Decree of 14 October 1994, the
                                                                   Under the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of
Kingdom of Belgium has issued a loan of DEM 1 000
                                                                   Council Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended by Council
million underwritten by an international syndicate of
                                                                   Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing
banks and financial institutions led by the Dresdner Bank
                                                                   the common system of value added tax and amending
and the Schweizerische Bankverein.
                                                                   Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) (OJ
                                                                   L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 1) and Council Directive
The conditions governing the loan issue expressly exclude          92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive
applications to subscribe thereto made by persons resident         77/388/EEC and introducing simplification measures with
in Belgium. That condition constitutes a restriction on the        regard to value added tax (OJ L 384, 30.12.1992, p. 47),
free movement of capital which is incompatible with                a reduced rate of the tax may not be lower than 5 % and
Article 73(b) of the EC Treaty.                                    applicable only to supplies of goods referred to in
                                                                   Annex H, which refers, inter alia, to medicaments.
                                                                   However, under Article 28(2)(a) of the directive, reduced
According to the Belgian authorities, the restriction in           rates of tax below the minimum level thus fixed which
question is necessary for fiscal reasons. Income derived           were applicable on 1 January 1991 and comply with
from movable assets of Belgian origin is subject to                Community law may be retained.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/21
The reduced rate for medicaments reimbursable by the                       Removal from the register of Case C-84/97 (1)
social security was applicable on 1 January 1991 but does                                  (1999/C 48/36)
not comply with Community law.
                                                                    By order of 27 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
Such a rate specifically for reimbursable medicaments,              European Communities has ordered the removal from the
whereas another rate is applicable to other medicaments,            register of Case C-84/97 (reference for a preliminary
is contrary to the principle of uniformity of the tax in            ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino):
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive.                            Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Grafoplast
                                                                    SpA.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
That specific rate is not, as the French Government
contends, based on objective criteria but on the legal
status of the products in question. Medicaments
reimbursable by the social security are not intrinsically
different from other medicaments.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-305/96 (1)
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/37)
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                    register of Case C-305/96: United Kingdom and Northern
                                                                    Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities.
      Removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (1)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                        (1999/C 48/34)
By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (Reference for                 Removal from the register of Case C-332/97 (1)
a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Sarclad
                                                                                (1999/C 48/38)
International Ltd v. Bundesamt für Finanzen.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.                                             By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-332/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-178/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/35)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-367/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/39)
By order of 23 October 1998, the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
Case C-178/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-367/97: Commission
Stefano Serbini v. Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero.
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the
                                                                    Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: Case T-22/13 and T-23/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Senz Technologies BV v OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing umbrellas — Grounds for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — American patent as earlier design — Circles specialised in the sector concerned — Informed user — Degree of attention of an informed user — Fashion accessories — Degree of freedom of the designer — Individual character — Different overall impression — Invalidity proceedings)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Senz Technologies BV v OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
   (Case T-22/13 and T-23/13) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing umbrellas - Grounds for invalidity - Disclosure of earlier design - American patent as earlier design - Circles specialised in the sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of attention of an informed user - Fashion accessories - Degree of freedom of the designer - Individual character - Different overall impression - Invalidity proceedings))
   (2015/C 221/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Senz Technologies BV (Delft (Netherlands)) (represented initially by: W. Hoyng and C. Zeri, and subsequently by W. Hoyng and I. de Bruijn, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Impliva BV (Mijdrecht (Netherlands)) (represented by: C. Gielen and A. Verschuur, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions brought against two decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2012 (Cases R 2453/2010-3 and R 2459/2010-3), in relation to invalidity proceedings between Impliva BV and Senz Technologies BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2012 (Cases R 2453/2010-3 and R 2459/2010-3);

               2.

               Orders Impliva BV to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of Senz Technologies BV;

               3.

               Orders Senz Technologies to bear two thirds of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-234/08: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/20

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council
   (Case T-234/08) (1)

   2014/C 15/30
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-688/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil n °3 de Barcelona (España) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L., other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona (España) lodged on 27 December 2013 — Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L., other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria
   (Case C-688/13)
   2014/C 78/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gimnasio Deportivo San Andrés, S.L.

      Other parties: Gemma Atarés París and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the guarantee, that the transferee acquiring an undertaking in insolvency or a production unit of that undertaking will not take on liability for debts arising out of social security debts incurred before the award of the production unit or out of previous employment-related debts when the insolvency proceedings give rise to protection at least equivalent to that provided for in the Community directives, be considered to relate uniquely and exclusively to debts directly linked to employment contracts or employment relationships or, in the framework of overall protection of the rights of employees and the safeguarding of employment, must that guarantee be extended to employment-related or social security debts incurred before the award to a third party?

               2.

               In the same context of guaranteeing the rights of employees, can the purchaser of the production unit obtain from the court dealing with the insolvency and authorising the award a guarantee, not only in relation to rights arising from the employment contracts but also in relation to debts incurred before the award that the insolvent company may owe to employees whose employment relationship has already been terminated or in relation to earlier social security debts?

               3.

               Does the person who acquires an insolvent undertaking or a production unit and undertakes to safeguard all or some of the contracts of employment, and accepts liability for them by subrogation, obtain the guarantee that there will not be claimed from him or transferred to him other obligations of the transferor connected to the contracts or [Or. 11] relationships where he accepts liability by subrogation, particularly earlier employment risks or social security debts?

               4.

               In brief, as regards the transfer of production units or undertakings that have been judicially or administratively declared insolvent and in liquidation, can Directive 2001/23 (1) be interpreted not only as permitting the safeguarding of contracts of employment but also as making it certain that the purchaser will not have to be liable for debts incurred before the award of that production unit[?]

               5.

               Does the wording of Article 149(2) of the Ley Concursal Española (Spanish Law on Insolvency), in referring to the transfer of an undertaking, constitute the provision of national law required by Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/23 for the exception to operate?

               6.

               And, if this is so, must the award order issued by the court conducting the insolvency proceedings and which contains these guarantees and safeguards at all events be binding on all other courts or in administrative proceedings that may be brought against the new purchaser in respect of debts incurred before the date of purchase, with the result, therefore, that Article 44 of the Workers’ Statute cannot render ineffective Article 149(2) and (3) of the Ley Concursal?

               7.

               If, on the other hand, it were to be considered that Articles 149(2) and (3) of the Ley Concursal do not operate as the exception provided for in Article 5 of the Directive, the Court of Justice is asked to make it clear whether the rules laid down in Article 3(1) of the Directive will affect only the employment-related rights and obligations, strictly speaking, laid down in the contracts in force, so that rights or obligations such as those arising from social security contributions or other obligations in respect of employment contracts already terminated before the insolvency proceedings were initiated are not, in any circumstances, to be regarded as being transferred to the purchaser.

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-413/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Franca Ninni-Orasche v Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Concept of "worker" — Contract of employment of a short term fixed in advance — Retention of the status of "worker" after end of employment contract — Conditions for the grant of social advantages within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Study finance)

text:
C 7/14                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             —     attempted to find a new job in the period between the end
                                                                                of the short, fixed-term employment relationship and the
                                                                                time when he took up his studies,
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                are not relevant in this connection.
                         of 6 November 2003                                    2.    A Community national such as the appellant in the main
                                                                                proceedings, where he has the status of a migrant worker for
in Case C-413/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                            the purposes of Article 48 of the Treaty, is not necessarily
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Franca Ninni-Orasche v                                  voluntarily unemployed, within the meaning established by the
 Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst (1)                              relevant case-law of the Court, solely because his contract of
                                                                                employment, from the outset concluded for a fixed term, has
                                                                                expired.
(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 48 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Concept of
‘worker’ — Contract of employment of a short term fixed in                     (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
advance — Retention of the status of ‘worker’ after end of
employment contract — Conditions for the grant of social
advantages within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation
               (EEC) No 1612/68 — Study finance)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2004/C 7/22)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 20 November 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Case C-416/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     in the European Court Reports)                            the Tribunal Supremo): Sociedad Cooperativa General
                                                                               Agropecuaria (ACOR) v Administración General del Esta-
                                                                               do, participant: Ebro Puleva SA, formerly Azucarera Ebro
                                                                                Agrícolas SA and Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén SA (1)
In Case C-413/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                      (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector —
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                    Reallocation or transfer of quotas — Interpretation of
Franca Ninni-Orasche and Bundesminister für Wissenschaft,                      Council Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81, (EEC) No 193/82
Verkehr und Kunst, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the                  and (EC) No 1260/2001 — Decision of competent auth-
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC), the Court                     orities of a Member State, when approving a merger, to
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                   reallocate sugar production quotas — Sale by public auction
the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken                                — Transfer of quotas for consideration)
and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November                                                    (2004/C 7/23)
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1.    The fact that a national of a Member State has worked for a
      temporary period of two and a half months in the territory of            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      another Member State, of which he is not a national, can confer                              in the European Court Reports)
      on him the status of a worker within the meaning of Article 48
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
      provided that the activity performed as an employed person is            In Case C-416/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      not purely marginal and ancillary.                                       by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                               the proceedings pending before that court between Sociedad
      It is for the national court to carry out the examinations of fact       Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Administra-
      necessary in order to determine whether that is so in the case           ción General del Estado, participant: Ebro Puleva SA, formerly
      before it. Circumstances preceding and subsequent to the period          Azucarera Ebro Agrícolas SA and Azucareras Reunidas de
      of employment, such as the fact that the person concerned:               Jaén SA, on the interpretation of Council Regulations (EEC)
                                                                               No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of
      —      took up the job only some years after his entry into the          the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4), (EEC)
             host Member State,                                                No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general rules for
                                                                               transfers of quotas in the sugar sector (OJ 1982 L 21, p. 3),
      —      shortly after the end of his short, fixed-term employment         and (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common
             relationship, became eligible for entry to university in the      organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001
             host Member State by virtue of having completed his               L 178, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
             schooling in his country of origin, or                            V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth


title: Case C-482/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (Patent law — Proprietary medicinal products — Regulations (EEC) No 1768/92 and (EC) No 1610/96 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Conditions for granting certificates to two or more holders of basic patents for the same product — Clarification on the existence of pending applications)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom
   (Case C-482/07) (1)

   (Patent law - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulations (EEC) No 1768/92 and (EC) No 1610/96 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Conditions for granting certificates to two or more holders of basic patents for the same product - Clarification on the existence of pending applications)
   2009/C 256/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AHP Manufacturing BV

      Defendant: Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c), 7(1) and (2), 9 and 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) and of recital 17 and the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — Issue of a certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product which, at the time of submission of the application for a certificate, is the subject of one or more certificates issued to one or more holders of other basic patents

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, considered in the light of the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product for which, at the time the certificate application is submitted, one or more certificates have already been granted to one or more holders of one or more other basic patents.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case C-168/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — First and Sixth VAT Directives — Facts pre-dating the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union — Jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/22

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-168/06) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - First and Sixth VAT Directives - Facts pre-dating the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union - Jurisdiction of the Court)
   (2007/C 96/38)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi
   Parties

      Applicant: Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Poland) — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ 1967 L 71, p. 1301), and Articles 2, 10(1)(a), 10(2) and 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the imposition of an additional tax in cases where irregularities are found in the return submitted by the taxable person
   Operative part of the order
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.