title: Judgment of the Court 19 March 2002 in Case C-13/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adhere within the prescribed period to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971) — Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the EEA Agreement)

text:
C 118/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
by the employer. That is so, however, only in so far, in particular, as     1.    Dismisses the application;
the said exception in favour of male officials is construed as allowing
those of them who take care of their children by themselves to have         2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
access to that nursery places scheme on the same conditions as female             two thirds of the costs and the Italian Republic to bear one
officials.                                                                        third of the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 19 March 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                  in Case C-13/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of Ireland (1)
                            7 March 2002
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Failure to adhere within the prescribed period to the Berne
                                                                            Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
in Case C-10/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            (Paris Act of 24 July 1971) — Failure to fulfil obligations
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
                                                                            ment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with Article 5 of
                                                                                Protocol 28 to the EEA Agreement)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Community own resources — Import from third countries of
                 goods destined for San Marino)                                                       (2002/C 118/11)
                           (2002/C 118/10)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case C-13/00, Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by K. Banks and M. Desantes, acting as Agents,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Republic of
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Ireland (Agent: initially M.A. Buckley, and, subsequently,
                                                                            D.J. O’Hagan), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                            and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted by M.
                                                                            Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, by
                                                                            failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January 1995 to the
In Case C-10/00, Commission of the European Communities                     Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. P. Hartvig) v Italian Republic                  Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), Ireland has failed to fulfil
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by I. M. Braguglia): Application for            its obligations under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now,
a declaration that, by not making available to the Commission               after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with
the sum of ITL 29 223 322 226 and by not paying default                     Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the European
interest on that amount from 1 January 1996, the Italian                    Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), the Court,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Com-                composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
munity provisions relating to the Communities’ own resources,               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President                  Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans                         (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;J. Mischo, Advo-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 March 2002, in which it:                                                  19 March 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 118/9
1.    Dismisses the submissions of the United Kingdom of Great               and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division, Crown Office) (Case
      Britain and Northern Ireland as intervener;                            C-27/00) and the High Court (Ireland) (Case C-122/00) for
                                                                             preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before those
                                                                             courts between The Queen and Secretary of State for the
2.    Declares that, by failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January     Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Omega Air
      1995 to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary            Ltd (C-27/00), on the validity of Article 2(2) of Council
      and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), Ireland has            Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(7) of the           registration and operation within the Community of certain
      EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in                 types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified
      conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on          and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume I, Part II,
      the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;                              Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International
                                                                             Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (OJ 1999 L 115, p. 1,
                                                                             and L 120, p. 47), the Court (), composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
3.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs;                                       Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
                                                                             Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodri-
4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                gues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      Ireland to bear its own costs.                                         General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 12 March 2002, in which it has
                                                                             ruled:
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                             Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no factor such
                                                                             as to affect the validity of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the registration and operation
                                                                             within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards
                                                                             of volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on
                                                                             International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993).
                            12 March 2002
in Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the — High Court of Justice
(England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
Office) (C-27/00), and — High Court (C-122/00)): The
Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Trans-
port and the Regions, ex parte Omega Air Ltd (C-27/00) (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
(Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 — Noise emissions of
aeroplanes — Prohibition of re-engined aeroplanes with
    engines with a by-pass ratio of less than 3 — Validity)
                           (2002/C 118/12)
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00: Reference to the Court
under Article 234 EC by the High Court of Justice of England


title: Case C-647/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Conditions governing eligibility for unemployment benefit in a Member State — Taking into account periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff of an institution of the European Union which is established in that Member State — Treatment of days of unemployment for which an allowance is paid under the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities as working days — Principle of sincere cooperation)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/11

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose Melchior
      (Case C-647/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Conditions governing eligibility for unemployment benefit in a Member State - Taking into account periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff of an institution of the European Union which is established in that Member State - Treatment of days of unemployment for which an allowance is paid under the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities as working days - Principle of sincere cooperation))
      (2015/C 107/14)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour du travail de Bruxelles

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Office national de l’emploi

         Respondent: Marie-Rose Melchior

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 10 EC, in conjunction with the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is interpreted as meaning that, in relation to eligibility for unemployment benefit, periods of work completed as a member of the contract staff in an institution of the European Union established in that Member State are not taken into account and days of unemployment which have given rise to payment of an unemployment allowance pursuant to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities are not treated as working days although days of unemployment for which benefit has been paid under the legislation of that Member State are so treated.

         (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-232/15 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — ultra air GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — EU word mark ultra.air ultrafilter — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal or for invalidity — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) — Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/4

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — ultra air GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-232/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - EU word mark ultra.air ultrafilter - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal or for invalidity - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2016/C 279/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ultra air GmbH (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent), Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (represented by: N. Siebertz and M. Teworte-Vey, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               ultra air GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015


title: Case T-18/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament
   (Case T-18/07)
   (2007/C 69/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W.L. Weh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs.

         Grounds and principal arguments
   The applicant stood for election to the European Parliament in the European Parliament elections which were held on 13 June 2004 in Austria.
   By the present action, he challenges the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005, according to which the applicant's challenge to the validity of the mandate of one of its Members is to be regarded as unfounded.
   In support of his claim, the applicant submits in particular that the Austrian rules on allocation of preferential votes are incompatible with Article 1 of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage (1) and are thus contrary to Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 5.


title: Case T-212/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Amertranseuro International Holdings and Others v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/32

         Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Amertranseuro International Holdings and Others v Commission
   (Case T-212/08)
   (2008/C 197/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Trans Euro Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Team Relocations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2(i) of the Commission Decision of 11 March in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services, in so far as it holds the applicants jointly and severally liable for Team Relocations NV's alleged infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in the period of January 1997 to September 2003;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2(i) of this Commission decision in so far as it does not effectively limit the joint and several liability of Amertranseuro Ltd to the amount of EUR 1,3 million;

               —

               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March (Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services) (‘the contested decision’), relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA. More specifically, the applicants seek the annulment of Article 2(i) of the contested decision in so far as it holds them jointly and severally liable for the alleged participation of Team Relocations NV (‘TRNV’) in the infringement described in Article 1 of the contested decision.
   The applicants put forward two pleas in law in support of their claims:
   First, they submit that the Commission erred by holding all three of them liable in spite of the fact that they were neither aware, nor could have been aware of TRNV's involvement in the alleged infringement. Second, the applicants claim that the Commission misused its powers by imposing a fine which they are unable to pay.


title: Case T-394/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Allocation of priority points — Refusal of promotion)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-394/04) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Allocation of priority points - Refusal of promotion)
   (2008/C 64/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented by: first J. Mosar, then F. Gengler and P. Goergen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the promotion procedure carried out in respect of the applicant for 2003, of the allocation of points made in the context of that procedure and the subsequent decision not to promote the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court of First Instance hereby:

               1.

               Annuls the decision concerning the number of priority points allocated to Guido Strack in the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to promote him through that procedure.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-429/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2009 — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle (Saale)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2009 — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle (Saale)
   (Case C-429/09)
   2010/C 24/41
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Halle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Günter Fuß

      Defendant: Stadt Halle (Saale)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do secondary claims result from Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, where an (official) employer has determined a working time which exceeds the limit laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, does the claim result from an infringement of Directive 2003/88/EC alone, or does Community law establish further requirements for the claim, for example, an application to the employer for a reduction in working time, or fault in determining the working time?

               3.

               In the event that a secondary claim exists, the question then arises whether the remedy should be time off in lieu or financial compensation, and what requirements exist under Community law for calculating the level of the claim?

               4.

               Are the reference periods laid down in Article 16(b) and/or the second paragraph of Article 19 of Directive 2003/88/EC directly applicable in a case such as the present one, in which national law merely determines a working time which exceeds the maximum working time laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC, without providing for compensation? Should direct applicability be affirmed, the question then arises whether, and if necessary how, the compensation should be effected, if the employer does not grant compensation by the end of the reference period?

               5.

               How must questions one to four be answered during the period when Council Directive 93/104/EC (2) of 23 November 1993 was in force?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299 p. 9).

      (2)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307 p. 18).


title: Case F-81/12: Action brought on 27 July 2012 — ZZ v Council

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/34

         Action brought on 27 July 2012 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-81/12)
   2012/C 295/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicant to grade AD12 in respect of promotion years 2010 and 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to grade AD12 in respect of promotion year 2010;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to grade AD12 in respect of promotion year 2011;

               —

               If necessary, annul the decision of 18 April 2012 rejecting the claims brought against the decisions not to promote him to grade AD12 in respect of promotion years 2010 and 2011;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-520/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-520/16)
   (2017/C 030/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel

      Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay?

               2.

               If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight?

               3.

               If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).


title: Case T-275/15: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2016 — Hmicho v Council

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/54

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2016 — Hmicho v Council
   (Case T-275/15) (1)

   (2016/C 156/74)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-482/13, C-484/13, C-485/13 and C-487/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v José Hidalgo Rueda and Others (C-482/13), Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers — Mortgage contracts — Default interest clauses — Unfair terms — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Moderation of the amount of interest — Powers of the national court)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/8

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v José Hidalgo Rueda and Others (C-482/13), Caixabank SA v Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13)
      (Joined Cases C-482/13, C-484/13, C-485/13 and C-487/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - Default interest clauses - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Moderation of the amount of interest - Powers of the national court))
      (2015/C 107/10)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Unicaja Banco, SA, Caixabank SA

         Defendants: José Hidalgo Rueda, María del Carmen Vega Martín, Gestión Patrimonial Hive SL, Francisco Antonio López Reina, Rosa María Hidalgo Vega (C-482/13), Manuel María Rueda Ledesma (C-484/13), Rosario Mesa Mesa (C-484/13), José Labella Crespo (C-485/13), Rosario Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Rafael Gallardo Salvat (C-485/13), Manuela Márquez Rodríguez (C-485/13), Alberto Galán Luna (C-487/13), Domingo Galán Luna (C-487/13)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision under which the national court hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings is required to adjust the amounts due under a term in a mortgage-loan contract providing for default interest at a rate more than three times greater than the statutory rate in order that the amount of that interest may not exceed that threshold, provided that the application of that national provision:

                  —

                  is without prejudice to the assessment by that national court of the unfairness of such a term, and

                  —

                  does not prevent that court removing that term if it were to find the latter to be ‘unfair’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-93/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/19

         Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-93/06)
   (2006/C 86/36)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by María Amparo Alcover San Pedro and Dr. Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2003/73/EC of 24 July 2003 amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on 25 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 186, 25.07.2003, p. 34.


title: Case C-530/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2014 in Case T-425/11 Greece v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/19

         Appeal brought on 21 November 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2014 in Case T-425/11 Greece v Commission

   (Case C-530/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/23)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.J. Loewenthal)

      Other party to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014, notified to the Commission on 12 September 2014, in Case Τ-425/11 Greece v Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2014:768);

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule again;

               —

               reserve the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is based on a single ground: the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that the contested measure did not provide any advantage for the public casinos. The single ground of appeal advanced by the Commission has three parts.
   First, in paragraphs 52 to 58 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that the public casinos did not enjoy an advantage from the payment of a lower tax for each entering customer on the basis of the contested measure, since the amounts paid represented 80 % of the mandatory entry fees which were charged by both the private and public casinos.
   Second, in paragraphs 59 to 68 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that it was not sufficient for the Commission to define the advantage of the contested measures as direct (de jure) tax discrimination, but that the Commission was obliged to base the existence of an advantage on an economic analysis of the effects of the contested measure.
   Third, in paragraphs 74 to 80 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in ruling that (i) the practice of free entry could not confirm the advantage of the contested measure since that measure did not provide any advantage and (ii) before that argument could be effective the Commission was bound to provide evidence that in practice the number of free entries granted was excessively high in comparison with the objectives of the Greek legislation which permitted that practice, so as to be incompatible with the conditions of that national legislation.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 24 January 1995 in Case T-74/92: Ladbroke Racing (Deutschland) GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for failure to act and annulment - Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty - Investigation of the complaint)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/9
application of a progressive weighting, not based on any                    Removal from the register of Case C-148/94 (*)
objective criterion, which is greater and increases more                                        ( 95/C 74/15 )
rapidly for the four tax bands from 19 CV (fiscal
horsepower) opwards, which apply only to cars imported
from other Member States, than for the tax bands from 12
to 14 CV, which cover three tax ratings, and the four tax           By order of 12 January 1995 the President pf the Court of
bands from 15 to 18 CV, in which its rate of progression is         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
constant and which apply to French-made cars capable of             from the register of Case C-148/94: Commission of the
being considered similar to imported products of over               European Communities v. Ireland.
19 CV ?
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . the remainder of the application, in so far as it is based
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   on Article 1 75 of the Treaty, is dismissed;
                      of 24 January 1995
                                                                    3 . it is not necessary to rule on the application under
in Case T-74/92: Ladbroke Racing (Deutschland ) GmbH v.                    Article 173 of the Treaty in so far as it concerns
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                       Article 86 of the Treaty;
 (Competition — Action for failure to act and annulment —
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty — Investigation of the
                                                                    4 . in so far as the application for annulment concerns
                            complaint)
                                                                           Article 85 of the Treaty it is dismissed as
                            95/C 74/16                                     inadmissible;
                (Language of the case: English)                     5 . the application seeking to have the Court issue
                                                                           directions   to   the    Commission   is  dismissed  as
                                                                           inadmissible;
In Case T-74/92 : Ladbroke Racing ( Deutschland) GmbH,
whose registered office is in Mainz (Germany), represented
by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, Barrister,                6 . the Commission shall pay its own costs and
members of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen                    three-quarters of those of the applicant;
Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston                   7. the intervener shall pay its own costs.
Diderich v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : J. Currall and F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz), supported by
Deutscher Sportverlag Kurt Stoof GmbH & Co.,                        (!) OJ No C 294, 10 . 11 . 1992 .
represented by Klaus-Jiirgen Michaeli and Ute Zinsmeister,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 62
Avenue Guillaume — application under the third paragraph
of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty
 (IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV), and                                              of 24 January 1995
alternatively under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the           in Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
annulment of the Commission's implicit decision to reject           l'Industrie Musicale (BEMIM) v. Commission of the
the complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                    European Communities ( ! )
 Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vila^a, President, C. P.          (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —
Briet, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M. Barrington and J.                Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the
Biancarelli, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             investigation of complaints — Community interest)
on 24 January 1995 , in which it declares that:
                                                                                95/C 74/17 )
 1 . in breach of the EEC Treaty the Commission has failed
     to define its position on the applicant's complaint (No                          (Language of the case: French)
     IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV) in so
     far as the latter was based on Article 86 of the               In Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
     Treaty;                                                        l'Industrie Musicale ( BEMIM ), established in Paris,


title: Case C-221/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Iberdrola Renovables Castilla-La Mancha S.A. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Iberdrola Renovables Castilla-La Mancha S.A. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha
   (Case C-221/16)
   (2016/C 243/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iberdrola Renovables Castilla-La Mancha S.A.

      Defendant: Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha

      Questions referred

               1.

               As the ‘support systems’ defined in Article 2(k) of Directive 2009/28/EC, including fiscal stimuli consisting of tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are envisaged as a means of attaining the renewable energy consumption objectives provided for in the aforementioned Directive 2009/28/EC, are those stimuli or measures to be regarded as mandatory and binding on the Member States, having direct effect in so far as they may be invoked and relied on by the individuals concerned in all kinds of public, judicial and administrative proceedings?

               2.

               Since the list of ‘support systems’ mentioned in the previous question includes fiscal stimulus measures consisting of, ‘but … not restricted to’, tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are those stimuli to be regarded as specifically including non-taxation, that is to say, the prohibition of any kind of specific and one-off levy, in addition to the general taxes levied on the economic activity and production of electricity, imposed on energy from renewable sources? The following question is also asked in this paragraph: [Similarly], is the general prohibition stated above also considered to include the prohibition of concurrence, double taxation or overlapping of multiple general or one-off taxes charged at different stages of the activity of generating renewable energy, affecting the same chargeable event taxed by the levy on wind power under consideration?

               3.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the negative and it is acknowledged that energy from renewable sources is taxable, for the purposes of the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC, is the term ‘specific purposes’ to be interpreted as meaning that its objective must be exclusive and, furthermore, that the tax on renewable energy must, as regards its structure, be genuinely non-fiscal, and not merely budgetary or revenue-collecting in nature?

               4.

               In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/96/EC, which, when referring to the levels of taxation which Member States are to apply to the energy products and electricity takes as its reference the minimum levels prescribed by the Directive, which are understood to be the total of all direct and indirect taxes applied to those products at the time of release for consumption, should that total be understood as excluding from the level of taxation required by the Directive those national taxes which, as regards their structure and specific purposes, are not genuinely non-fiscal, as interpreted according to the reply to the previous question?

               5.

               Is the term ‘charge’ used in Article 13(1)(e) of Directive 2009/28/EC an autonomous concept of European law which is to be interpreted more broadly, as comprehensive and also synonymous with the concept of tax in general?

               6.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, the question we raise is the following: May the charges, referred to in the aforementioned Article 13(1)(e), payable by consumers, include only those levies or taxes which are designed to compensate, where appropriate, for the damage caused by the impact [of energy products and electricity] on the environment and seek to make good, using the revenue generated, the damage linked to that adverse impact or effect, but not those taxes or benefits which, applying to non-polluting energy, fulfil a primarily budgetary or tax-collecting purpose?


title: Case C-202/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Innoweb BV v Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Article 7(1) and (5) — Sui generis right of the database maker — Concept of ‘re-utilisation’ — Substantial part of the contents of the database — Dedicated meta search engine)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Innoweb BV v Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV
   (Case C-202/12) (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Article 7(1) and (5) - Sui generis right of the database maker - Concept of ‘re-utilisation’ - Substantial part of the contents of the database - Dedicated meta search engine)
   2014/C 52/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Den Haag, formerly Gerechtshof te ‘s Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Innoweb BV

      Defendants: Wegener ICT Media BV, Wegener Mediaventions BV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te s’-Gravenhage — Netherlands — Interpretation of Article 7(1) and (5) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996, L 77, p. 20) — Right of the database maker to prohibit the extraction and/or repeated re-utilisation of a substantial part of the contents of a database — Prohibition of the repeated and systematic re-utilisation of non-substantial parts of the contents of a database implying acts that conflict with normal exploitation of that database or unreasonably prejudicing the interests of the maker of the database — Sufficiency of repeated re-utilisation or cumulative condition of systematic re-utilisation — Re-utilisation through an automated system.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that an operator who makes available on the Internet a dedicated meta search engine such as that at issue in the main proceedings re-utilises the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database protected under Article 7, where that dedicated meta engine:

               —

               provides the end user with a search form which essentially offers the same range of functionality as the search form on the database site;

               —

               ‘translates’ queries from end users into the search engine for the database site ‘in real time’, so that all the information on that database is searched through; and

               —

               presents the results to the end user using the format of its website, grouping duplications together into a single block item but in an order that reflects criteria comparable to those used by the search engine of the database site concerned for presenting results.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-396/06: Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Commission v TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/33

         Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Commission v TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz
   (Case T-396/06)
   (2007/C 42/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimerdová, R.Bierwagen (lawyer))

      Defendant: TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendant to reimburse the applicant EUR 32,440.80 plus 4 % interest with effect from 30 November 1999;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant concluded an agreement on Community activities in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 — 1998) (1), in which it was agreed that the Court of First Instance would have jurisdiction over disputes connected with this agreement. The subject of the project was the construction and commissioning, on a trial basis, of a leather drying plant.
   The Commission terminated this agreement by letter of 18 February 1999, on the ground that no proper final report was submitted to it. The applicant submits, in this connection, that the statements of accounts presented to it by the defendant subsequently were only partially approved because a number of documents were missing. The remaining amount has been demanded by the applicant on several occasions and is the subject of the present action.

      (1)  Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (OJ 1998 L 334, p. 87).


title: Case C-400/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Repsol YPF, SA (Appeals — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Application for registration of a Community figurative mark — Word element ‘basic’ — Earlier Community figurative mark — Word element ‘BASIC’ — Opposition by the proprietor of that mark — Partial refusal of registration — Concepts of ‘distribution services’ and of ‘retail and wholesale services’ — Scope)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/10

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Repsol YPF, SA
   (Case C-400/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Application for registration of a Community figurative mark - Word element ‘basic’ - Earlier Community figurative mark - Word element ‘BASIC’ - Opposition by the proprietor of that mark - Partial refusal of registration - Concepts of ‘distribution services’ and of ‘retail and wholesale services’ - Scope))
   (2015/C 320/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (represented by: D. Altenburg and T. Haug, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Repsol YPF, SA (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, abogado)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-423/13 and T-64/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016 — Good Luck Shipping v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran — Freezing of funds — Error of law — Legal basis — Error of assessment — No evidence)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016 — Good Luck Shipping v Council
   (Joined Cases T-423/13 and T-64/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran - Freezing of funds - Error of law - Legal basis - Error of assessment - No evidence))
   (2016/C 243/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3), Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as those measures relate to the applicant, and, second, for a declaration that Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46) and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1) are inapplicable.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Good Luck Shipping LLC:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2013/661 be maintained as regards Good Luck Shipping until the annulment of Regulation No 1154/2013 takes effect;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Good Luck Shipping.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-173/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2014 by European Dynamics Belgium and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-158/12 European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/18

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2014 by European Dynamics Belgium and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-158/12 European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA

   (Case C-173/14 P)
   2014/C 184/22
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellants: European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case Τ-158/12 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

               —

               Order the EMA to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The appellants submit that the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case Τ-158/12 contains findings of law which are manifestly contrary to rules of European Union law and are contested in this appeal.

               2.

               In the opinion of the appellants, the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the ground of a manifest error of assessment, on the ground of a distortion of the appellants’ arguments, on the ground of a defective statement of reasons and on the ground of misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law.

               3.

               Specifically, the appellants put forward four grounds of appeal:

                           —

                           The first ground of appeal concerns the new award criterion which was added in the tendering procedure but was not provided for within the technical specifications. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal the distortion of their plea in law and of the arguments put forward in their written pleadings, and also failure to state reasons.

                           —

                           The second ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a qualitative selection criterion as an award criterion. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal an error of assessment, misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, and a failure to state reasons.

                           —

                           The third ground of appeal concerns the assessment of the experience acquired from previous contracts with the same award criteria. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal misinterpretation and misapplication of European Union law, an error of assessment and failure to state reasons.

                           —

                           The fourth ground of appeal concerns the assessment of a criterion of which objective marking was not possible. In respect of this ground, the appellants challenge by this appeal a manifest error of assessment, misapplication of European Union law and failure to state reasons.


title: Case F-58/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity — Annulment by the Tribunal on the ground of failure to state reasons — Request for implementation of the judgment — Request for reinstatement — Judgment of the Tribunal set aside — No interest in bringing proceedings — Article 266 TEU — Non-contractual liability of the institution — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/20

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-58/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity - Annulment by the Tribunal on the ground of failure to state reasons - Request for implementation of the judgment - Request for reinstatement - Judgment of the Tribunal set aside - No interest in bringing proceedings - Article 266 TEU - Non-contractual liability of the institution - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2014/C 31/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission and, on that basis, assignment of the applicant to duties relating to a post in the function group corresponding to the former’s grade and an application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.09.2012, p. 33.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by orders of that court of 6 February 1996 in the cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche Telekom AG and Ute Conze v. Deutsche Telekom AG (Cases C-234/96 and C-235/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 11
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                           References for a preliminary ruling from the
      proceedings .                                                      Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by orders of that court of
                                                                         6 February 1996 in the cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche
                                                                           Telekom AG and Ute Conze v. Deutsche Telekom AG
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Cases C-234/96 and C-235/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/24 )
— Breach of the EC Treaty or of legal rules for its
      implementation : Article 9 ( 2 ), final clause , of Regulation
      ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( 2 ) provides that a tenderer in an             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
      invitation to tender concerning the sale of beef or veal           the European Communities by orders of the
      into intervention during the 1991 and 1992 financial               Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg ( Higher Labour Court,
      years could submit only one tender per category in                 Hamburg ) of 6 February 1996 , which were received at the
      response to each invitation to tender. There is, in the            Court Registry on 9 July 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the
      Danish Government's view, no basis for assuming that               cases of Agnes Vick v. Deutsche Telekom AG and Ute Conze
      the definition of 'a tenderer' in Regulation ( EEC )               v. Deutsche Telekom AG on the following questions :
      No 859/89 must be restricted to cover exclusively
      independent legal persons that are not interconnected .            1 . Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty, the Barber Protocol
      The amendments made to Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89                    No 2 and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of
      by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1282/90 ( 3 ) and Regulation                  the European Communities as primary Community law
      ( EEC ) No 2271 /90 (4 ) demonstrate that the purpose of               have priority over the constitutional law ( Article 3 of
      the provision was at all times to limit the number of                  the Grundgesetz ( Basic Law )) and ordinary law
      tenders per tenderer rather than to limit the number of                ( Paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschaftigungsforderungsgesetz
      tenderers . It follows neither from the recitals in the                ( Employment Promotion Law ) and the general principle
      preamble nor from the discussions within the                           of equal treatment in labour law ) in force in Germany,
      Management Committee that tenderers should be                          with the consequence that where the factual
      independent of each other . That requirement first arises              requirements are fulfilled for a claim under Article 119
      in the second subparagraph of Article 11 ( 3 ) of                      of the EC Treaty on the ground of indirect sex
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 ( 5 ). This means that the               discrimination in connection with an occupational
      Danish authorities were not empowered in 1991 and                      old-age pension scheme because of unfavourable
       1 992 to reject tenders from independent legal persons on             treatment of part-time workers, benefits on the basis of
      the ground that they were not independent of another                   constitutional or ordinary rules of national law can also
      tenderer. It is therefore contrary to Community law for                be claimed only under the same restrictive conditions as
      the Commission to argue that the Danish authorities                    apply to a coincident Community law claim under
      were under such an obligation and for it, on the basis of              Article 1 1 9 of the EC Treaty, so that, in divergence from
      that contention, to refuse to allow EAGGF financing of                 the legal assessment otherwise applicable under national
      notified expenditure resulting from a tender effected in               law, even on the basis of grounds of claim under
      accordance with Community law in force .                               national law benefits are owed only for periods of
                                                                             employment after 17 May 1990, subject to the
      In any event, the EAGGF has not incurred a loss in the                 exception for employees who have initiated legal
      present case , and the Commission's straight reduction of              proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim before
      2 % in the expenditure which Denmark notified for                      that date ?
      EAGGF financing therefore amounts to a breach of the
      Treaty or of legal rules for its implementation .                  2 . Does that also apply where , under the concurrent
                                                                             national law basis , there is a claim to equal treatment
— Absence of reasons .                                                       simply because there is objectively unjustified
                                                                             unfavourable treatment because of working part time ,
                                                                             without it being relevant whether there is also indirect
(') OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .                                    sex discrimination on the basis of a numerically
( 2 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989               proportionally greater unfavourable treatment of
      laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention         women workers ?
      measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
      p. 5 ).
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1282/90 of 15 May 1990
      amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( OJ No L 126 , 16 . 5 .
      1990 , p. 31 ).
(4 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2271 /90 of 1 August 1990
      amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/ 89 ( OJ No L 204 , 2 . 8 .
      1990 , p. 45 ).
                                                                         Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the
(5 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 of 1 September             European Communities against the Federal Republic of
      1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council                                    Germany
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 as regards the general and special                             ( Case C-236/96 )
      intervention measures for beef ( OJ No L 225 , 4 . 9 . 1993 ,
      P - 4 ).                                                                                ( 96/C 269/25 )
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-372/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of military equipment)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-372/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)
   2010/C 51/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, G. Wilms, D. Triantafyllou and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent, C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent), Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, A. Samoni-Rantou and K. Boskovits, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to calculate, declare and make available to the European Commission the own resources relating to imports of military material during the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002 and by refusing to pay default interest payable due to the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-198/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2012 — Lan Airlines SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas de Mediterráneo SA (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM — Application for registration — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN — Rejection of the opposition — No likelihood of confusion — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2012 — Lan Airlines SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas de Mediterráneo SA
   (Case C-198/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Community word mark LÍNEAS AÉREAS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO LAM - Application for registration - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN - Rejection of the opposition - No likelihood of confusion - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   2012/C 303/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Lan Airlines SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri. lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent), Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 February 2011 in Case T-194/09 Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, by which the General Court dismissed an appeal brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 107/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lan Airlines, SA and Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               LAN Airlines SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-174/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 9 April 2014  — Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos de Saúde dos Açores S.A. v Fazenda Pública

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 9 April 2014 — Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos de Saúde dos Açores S.A. v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-174/14)
   2014/C 212/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Saudaçor — Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos de Saúde dos Açores S.A.

      Respondent: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               May a national court give substance to the concept of body governed by public law within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006, by reference to the legislative concept of body governed by public law laid down in Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004?

               2.

               Is an entity established as a limited company, with exclusively public capital and 100 % owned by the Autonomous Region of the Azores, and whose object is the exercise of consultancy and management activities in matters relating to the Regional Health System, with the purpose of developing and reorganising it, through the performance of programme agreements concluded with the Autonomous Region of the Azores, which holds, by delegation, the public-authority powers conferred in those matters on the Autonomous Region, which was originally responsible for providing the public health service, covered by the concept of a body governed by public law acting as a public authority for the purpose of the first paragraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006?

               3.

               In the light of the provisions of that directive, may the consideration received by that company, which consists in the making available of the financial resources necessary for the performance of those programme agreements, be regarded as payment for the services provided, for the purposes of liability to VAT?

               4.

               If so, does that company satisfy the requirements necessary in order to be entitled to rely upon the rule governing not being regarded as a taxable person laid down in Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-148/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/51/EC)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/23
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Article 4c of
                                                                                Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on
                                                                                competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March
                                                                                1996, and by failing to comply with Article 5(1), (3), (4) and
                                                                                (5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
                                                                                Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service
                                                                                and interoperability through application of the principles of
                                                                                Open Network Provision (ONP), the French Republic has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
                                                                           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 6 December 2001
in Case C-146/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Telecommunications — Financing of a ‘universal service’                                               (Fourth Chamber)
          — contribution from new market entrants)
                                                                                of 6 December 2001
                           (2002/C 84/36)
                                                                           in Case C-148/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                 ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       to transpose Directive 98/51/EC)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/37)
In Case C-146/00: Commission of the European Communities                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
(Agents: initially by B. Doherty and F. Siredey-Garnier, and,
subsequently, by E. Gippini Fournier and F. Siredey-Garnier) v
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
French Republic (Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger,
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
F. Million and S. Pailler, and, subsequently, by G. de Bergues,
F. Million and S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that,
by failing to comply with Article 4c of Commission Directive
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), as                 In Case C-148/00: Commission of the European Communities
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                       (Agents: initially S. Dragone and F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi, and
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), and by failing to comply with                  subsequently S. Dragone and L. Visaggio) v Italian Republic
Article 5(1), (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the                (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis) — application for
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997                     a declaration that, by not adopting and, in any event, by
on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to                    not notifying the Commission of the laws, regulations and
ensuring universal service and interoperability through appli-             administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
cation of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ
1997 L 199, p. 32), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its           —     Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending
obligations under the EC Treaty and under those directives —                     Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President                     90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for
of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                            pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit and
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geel-                    vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and certain
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables
judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:                                        (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33),
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/24                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
—     Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997                       G. Kanellopoulos, C. Tsiavou and D. Tsagkaraki) — application
      amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive 72/462/EEC                for a declaration that, by not bringing into force the laws,
      with regard to the rules applicable to minced meat, meat             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
      preparations and certain other products of animal origin             with:
      (OJ 1998 L 10, p. 25), and
—     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying
      down certain measures for implementing Council Direc-                —     Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending
      tive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrange-                      Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and
      ments for approving and registering certain establish-                     90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for
      ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed                      pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit and
      sector (OJ 1998 L 208, p. 43),                                             vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and certain
                                                                                products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the              (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33),
Treaty and those directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, A. La
Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Lé-
ger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    —     Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997
judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:                                        amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive 72/462/EEC
                                                                                with regard to the rules applicable to minced meat, meat
1.    Declares that, by not bringing into force, within the prescribed           preparations and certain other products of animal origin
      period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                (OJ 1998 L 10, p. 25),
      necessary to comply with Commission Directive 98/51/EC of
      9 July 1998 laying down certain measures for implementing
      Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
      arrangements for approving and registering certain establish-        —     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying
      ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector,              down certain measures for implementing Council Direc-
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            tive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrange-
      that directive.                                                            ments for approving and registering certain establish-
                                                                                ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              sector (OJ 1998 L 208, p. 43), and
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                           —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998
                                                                                amending         Directives      80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,
                                                                                91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and
                                                                                repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (OJ 1998 L 261, p. 10),
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           within the periods laid down by those directives, the Hellenic
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said
                                                                           directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                           S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
                        of 6 December 2001                                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
                                                                           General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Decem-
in Case C-166/00: Commission of the European Communi-                      ber 2001, in which it:
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
to transpose Directives 97/41/EC, 98/51/EC and 98/67/EC)
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by not bringing into force, within the prescribed
                                                                                period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                           (2002/C 84/38)                                        necessary to comply with:
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           —     Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending
                    in the European Court Reports)                                     Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC
                                                                                and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum
                                                                                levels for pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit
                                                                                and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and
In Case C-166/00: Commission of the European Communities                               certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                                vegetables,


title: Case C-471/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Articles 5(2) and 11(1) — Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her pregnancy — Compulsory transfer because of a risk to her safety or health and that of her child — Pay less than the average pay received before the transfer — Previous pay made up of a basic salary and various supplementary allowances — Calculation of the salary to which a pregnant worker is entitled during the period of her temporary transfer)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj
   (Case C-471/08) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Articles 5(2) and 11(1) - Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her pregnancy - Compulsory transfer because of a risk to her safety or health and that of her child - Pay less than the average pay received before the transfer - Previous pay made up of a basic salary and various supplementary allowances - Calculation of the salary to which a pregnant worker is entitled during the period of her temporary transfer)
   2010/C 234/13
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Helsingin käräjäoikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sanna Maria Parviainen

      Defendant: Finnair Oyj

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Helsingin käräjäoikeus — Interpretation of Article 11(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Air hostess having worked as a purser, transferred on account of her pregnancy to ground activities which pay less than the post occupied before the transfer — Maintenance of remuneration equivalent to the remuneration received prior to the transfer

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(1) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as meaning that a pregnant worker who, in accordance with Article 5(2) thereof, has been temporarily transferred on account of her pregnancy to a job in which she performs tasks other than those she performed prior to that transfer, is not entitled to the pay she received on average prior to that transfer. In addition to the maintenance of her basic salary, such a worker is entitled, pursuant to Article 11(1), to pay components or supplementary allowances relating to her professional status, such as allowances relating to her seniority, her length of service and her professional qualifications. Although Article 11(1) of Directive 92/85 does not preclude the use of a method of calculating remuneration to be paid to such a worker based on the average amount of the allowances linked to working conditions of all the air crew in the same pay grade during a given reference period, the failure to take account of those pay components or supplementary allowances must be regarded as contrary to the latter provision.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case T-38/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the offending conduct — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission
   (Case T-38/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances)
   2011/C 269/89
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Shell Petroleum NV (The Hague, Netherlands); Shell Nederland BV (The Hague); and Shell Nederland Chemie BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by: T. Snoep and J. Brockhoff, and subsequently by T. Snoep and S. Chamalaun, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and J. Samnadda, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, so far as Shell Petroleum NV and Shell Nederland BV are concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Shell Petroleum, Shell Nederland and Shell Nederland Chemie BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shell Petroleum NV, Shell Nederland BV and Shell Nederland Chemie BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.