title: Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-17/99)

text:
C 71/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
    The appellant further observes that the Court of First           the European Communities on 25 January 1999 by the
    Instance misapplied the criteria for determining the             French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
    causal link.                                                     Deputy Director responsible for matters of international
                                                                     economic law and Community law in the Ministry of
                                                                     Foreign Affairs, and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard
                                                                     Joseph II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour
Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a                      The French Republic claims that the Court should:
judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la
                    SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding
                                                                     Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998) 3515 final
                        (Case C-16/99)
                                                                         of 4 November 1998 concerning aid granted to
                        (1999/C 71/38)                                   Nouvelle Filature LainieÁre de Roubaix, inasmuch as it
                                                                         declares the aid granted to be incompatible with the
                                                                         common market;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of 21 January 1999
of the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de la         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding on the following questions:
May Article 19 of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) to facilitate the          Ð Breach of an essential rule governing the procedure for
free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                   reviewing grants of State aid: the Commission adopted
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                the decision taken by it on the basis of the
qualifications be applied, in a State with provisions on this            information available to it', whereas the Court's
matter laid down by law, in favour of an applicant with a                case-law and the rule which the Commission imposes
qualification obtained in another Member State but not                   on itself, both in its publications (1) and in its
included in the list of specialist training courses contained            decision-making practice, required it to demand the
in Article 7 of the Directive who requests authorization,                Member State concerned, by interim decision
on the basis of the training he has acquired in the other                addressed to that State, to communicate to it the
Member State, to use an equivalent professional title in                 information necessary in order for it to reach its
the host State?                                                          decision.
If not,                                                              Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Does Article 10 of Directive 93/16/EEC confer on holders             Ð Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty: manifest
of academic titles acquired in another Member State                      error of assessment in declaring the aid in question to
merely the option of using their academic title or, where                be incompatible with the common market on the basis
appropriate, the abbreviation thereof, or, conversely,                   of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
should the text of the directive be interpreted to the effect
that only the academic title in the language of the country              Ð The Commission's arguments in support of its
in which it was awarded may be authorised, to the                            conclusion that the undertaking concerned was
exclusion of equivalent titles formulated in the language                    uncompetitive and, consequently, not viable on a
and according to the terminology of the host State?                          long-term basis, are either wholly irrelevant or
                                                                             deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that provision was
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                                made in the 1996 financial year for the investment
                                                                             premium of FF 22 million, that year Ð involving
                                                                             as it did the aforesaid exceptional element Ð
                                                                             could not be used as the basis for assessing the Ð
                                                                             allegedly negative Ð trend shown by the net
                                                                             results in subsequent years, and thus for evaluating
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French                              the competitiveness of the undertaking. The
Republic against the Commission of the European                              discontinuance of one of its activities (fancy yarn')
                         Communities                                         in 1998 cannot justify the conclusion that there
                                                                             was a decrease in the competitiveness of all the
                        (Case C-17/99)                                       undertaking's activities, since it concerned a
                        (1999/C 71/39)                                       marginal activity and not, as the Commission
                                                                             claims, an important part of the activities of the
                                                                             new undertaking. Lastly, it was not open to the
An action against the Commission of the European                             Commission to infer from that factor that there
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       was a lack of competitiveness, unless it is
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/23
         considered that an undertaking in difficulties, the         Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
         position of which in terms of pricing covers the                European Communities of 30 November 1998 in Case
         middle to the top of the range, must of necessity               T-97/94;
         abandon its strategy and adopt instead a strategy
         of price dumping Ð which does not seem to                   Ð declare the action brought by the applicant on 9 March
         accord with the spirit of the guidelines.                       1994 admissible and well founded;
     Ð The Commission's finding concerning a lack of                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
         proportion between State funds and the
         contribution made by the buyer does not in any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         way take into account the special situation of such
         buyers as the managers of the undertaking, who              Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
         contribute sums corresponding to their personal                 on Human Rights, discrimination, breach of the
         finances and thereby show their commitment to                   principle that no person should be allowed to derive
         the restructuring plan. In addition, the                        an advantage from his own illegal acts: whilst the
         Commission has failed to take into account the                  appellant may no longer have been in the service of
         fact that the recipient undertaking constitutes a               the Commission at the time when he brought his
         small to medium-sized undertaking and the fact                  action, he was in its service at the time when he made
         that it is in an objective 2' zone, despite the fact           his complaint giving rise to the subsequent
         that provision is made for this in the guidelines.              proceedings. By failing to notify its decision rejecting
         The Commission wrongly estimates the buyer's                    his complaint until after the expiry of the period of
         contribution to amount to 12 % of the State funds               four months provided for by the Staff Regulations of
         applied; in terms of the subsidy' equivalent, the              Officials, the Commission itself created the
         proportion in question amounts to 22 %. Lastly,                 circumstances which enabled it to plead the absence of
         the restructuring measures taken (involving the                 a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
         closing down of approximately 60 % of
         production capacity, laying off of employees, etc.)         Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of, and
         clearly show that the undertaking has participated              respect for, personal rights: the Court of First Instance
         in the efforts made.                                            failed to take into account the fact that positive staff
                                                                         reports may still permit an official, even after his
     Ð As regards the criterion of preventing distortions
                                                                         service has terminated, to prove his scientific and
         of competition, the French Government considers
                                                                         professional abilities in the event of his continuing to
         that the Commission's assessment fails to take into
                                                                         pursue his professional activities, even outside the
         account the information provided by it, and that
                                                                         Community sphere.
         the decision is not sufficiently specific and
         detailed.
(1) Competition law in the European Communities', Vol. II B,
    p. 38.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-204/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/41)
                                                                     By order of 10 December 1998 the President of the Court
Appeal brought on 29 January 1999 by N against the                   of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
order made on 30 November 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                  removal from the register of Case C-204/98: Commission
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                        (Case C-21/99 P)
                         (1999/C 71/40)
An appeal against the order made on 30 November 1998
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Removal from the register of Case C-308/98 (1)
European Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and                                           (1999/C 71/42)
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
Communities on 29 January 1999 by N, represented by
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Georges Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar.
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-308/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v Ireland.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
Ð declare the present appeal admissible and well
     founded;


title: Case C-260/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain)) — Pedro IV Servicios SL v Total España SA (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels — Exemption — Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Article 12(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Articles 4(a) and 5(a) — Period of exclusivity — Retail price-fixing)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain)) — Pedro IV Servicios SL v Total España SA
   (Case C-260/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels - Exemption - Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Article 12(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Articles 4(a) and 5(a) - Period of exclusivity - Retail price-fixing)
   2009/C 141/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pedro IV Servicios SL

      Defendant: Total España SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 81(1)(a) EC, of recital 8 in the preamble and of Articles 10 and 12(1)(c) and 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) and of Articles 4(a) and 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/99 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Exclusive fuel distribution agreement between a supplier and the operator of a service-station — Whether the supplier must be the proprietor of the land and installations comprising the service-station or whether other legal titles which enable the supplier to lease the service-station to a reseller who is the proprietor of the land are sufficient — Restriction of the reseller’s freedom to determine his selling price

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of applying the exception which it laid down, that provision did not require the supplier to be the owner of the land on which he had built the service station which he let to the reseller.

               2.

               Article 5(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of applying the exception which it lays down, that provision requires that the supplier is the owner both of the service station which he lets to the reseller and of the land on which it is built, or, if he is not the owner, that he leases the land and service station from third parties not connected to the reseller.

               3.

               Contractual clauses relating to the retail price, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are eligible for the block exemptions under Regulation No 1984/83, as amended by Regulation No 1582/97, and Regulation No 2790/1999 where the supplier restricts himself to imposing a maximum sale price or to recommending a sale price and where, therefore, it is genuinely possible for the reseller to determine the retail price. On the other hand, such clauses are ineligible for those exemptions where they lead, directly or by indirect or concealed means, to the fixing of a retail price or the imposition of a minimum sale price by the supplier. It is for the national court to determine whether such obligations constrain the reseller, taking account of all of the contractual obligations in their economic and legal context, and of the conduct of the parties to the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 04.08.2007.


title: Case T-439/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Fulmen v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/34

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Fulmen v Council
   (Case T-439/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fulmen (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Kronshagen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul point 11 of Section I B of the annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and the Council's decision of 26 July 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, (1) and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, in so far as the applicant's name has been placed on the list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen pursuant to that provision.
   In support of its action the applicant submits that the contested Council decision should be annulled since there is no relevant decision of a competent authority justifying, at the time of its adoption, the inclusion of the applicant on the list of organisations involved in Iran's nuclear or ballistic missiles activities.
   The applicant also alleges an infringement of procedural guarantees in that its rights of defence and its right to a fair hearing have been infringed in so far as:

               —

               the Council did not sufficiently reason its decision to include the applicant's name on the contested list;

               —

               the factors held against the applicant were not communicated prior to the Council's decision; and

               —

               the applicant was not provided with the opportunity to effectively express its point of view on those factors.

      (1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).


title: Case T-187/01: Action brought on 7 August 2001 by Arnaldo Mellone against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.10.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/35
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    damage suffered by him, the sum of 10 000 euros,
                                                                                subject to increase or reduction during the course of the
                                                                                proceedings;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in              Pleas in law and main arguments
Case T-178/01 Di Lenardo Adriano.
                                                                          In support of his action, the applicant invokes Articles 25 and
(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.                                             43 of the Staff Regulations, the general provisions for the
                                                                          implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the
                                                                          principles of sound administration, the protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty. The applicant further claims
                                                                          that there has been a misuse of powers.
Action brought on 7 August 2001 by Arnaldo Mellone
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Action brought on 20 August 2001 by Aristotelio Panepis-
                          (Case T-187/01)                                 timio Thessalonikis against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
                          (2001/C 289/76)
                                                                                (Case T-196/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                (2001/C 289/77)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: Greek)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 August 2001 by Arnaldo Mel-                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lone, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat,         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                European Communities on 20 August 2001 by Aristotelio
                                                                          Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Aristotle University, Thessaloniki),
                                                                          represented by Dimos Nikopoulos, of the Thessaloniki Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
      on 10 July 2000, whereby the applicant’s staff report for           —     annul Decision C (2001) 1284 of the European Com-
      the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 were                          mission of 8 June 2001 withdrawing assistance granted
      declared definitive by the appeal assessor, and, in so far                to the Laboratory for Forest Genetics and Improvement
      as may be necessary, annul the note of 18 July 2000                       of Forest Species of the Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessa-
      rectifying the material error as to the period covered by                 lonikis by Commission Decision C (96) 2542 of 25 Sep-
      the report in question;                                                   tember 1996 concerning the grant of assistance by the
                                                                                EAGGF Guidance Section, pursuant to Council Regu-
—     annul the decision of 24 April 2001, received by the                      lation (EEC) No 4256/88, in connection with Project
      applicant on 7 May 2001, expressly rejecting his com-                     No 93.EL.06.023 entitled: pilot project relating to the
      plaint;                                                                   speeding-up of the replacement of forests destroyed by
                                                                                fire in Greece.
—     in consequence of those annulments, rule that the
      applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 July 1995            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      to 30 June 1997 is not definitive and should not, as it
      currently stands, be placed on the applicant’s personal
      file, or alternatively that it should be withdrawn pending          Pleas in law and main arguments
      completion of the proper, definitive staff report to be
      prepared;                                                           The applicant submits that the contested Commission decision
                                                                          infringes Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and the
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of              principle of proportionality. In addition, the reasoning given
      compensation for the professional and non-material                  in the decision is not lawful or sufficient.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 October 1995 in Case T-165/89 (129): Onno Plug v. Commission of the European Communities (Interpretation)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315/ 15
and also, in the oral procedure, by Harold Nyssens of the             1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  inadmissible.
the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                   2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992 , 31 December              f 1 ) OJ No C 23 , 31 . 1 . 1990 .
1992 ( implicit rejection ) and 3 March 1993 concerning the
maintenance of the applicant's personal file and certain
measures taken to assist him, and for an order requiring the
Commission to pay damages for the harm which the
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the existence
of a separate file — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R.
                                                                                of 29 September 1995
Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 1995 , in               in Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani and Others
which it :                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( J )
                                                                       (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
1 . Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992              Committee — Manifest inadmissibility — Application to
     and 3 March 1993 inasmuch as they reject the                                                        intervene)
     applicant 's request for the inclusion in his personal file                                    ( 95/C 315/33 )
      of certain documents relating to his administrative
     position and reports concerning his ability, efficiency or
      conduct.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of             In Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani,
      Bfrs 1 00 000 as compensation for the non-material              Federazione nazionale Pensionati , Unione Italiana
      damage suffered by him .                                        Lavoratori Pensionati , represented by Massimo Severo
                                                                       Giannini and Massimo d'Antona, of the Rome Bar, and
                                                                      Mario Chiti, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service
3 . Dismisses the remainder of the action .
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                       Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
4 . Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.                     ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio Tanca ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Council Decision
 (•) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 and OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .       94/660/EC, Euratom of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       1 994 L 257, p. 20 ) in so far as it appoints Filippo de Jorio —
                                                                       the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio,
                                                                      Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 September
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                       of 5 October 1995
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
 in Case T-165 /89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of
                          (Interpretation)                                   the defendants.
                           ( 95/C 315/32 )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                 (Language of the case: French)
 In Case T-165/89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug, a former member of the
 temporary staff of the Commission of the European
  Communities ,      residing     at   Thonex      ( Switzerland ),     Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Adriaan A1 and
 represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,              Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                     ( Case T-171 /95 )
  the European Communities ( Agent: Sean Van                                                          ( 95/C 315 /34 )
  Raepenbusch ) — application for interpretation of the
  judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth                             (Language of the case: French)
  Chamber ) on 27 February 1992 in Case T-165/89 (( 1992 )
  ECR 11-367 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
  Chamber ) made an order on 5 October 1995 , the operative             An action against the Commission of the European
  part of which is as follows :                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-655/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/7

         Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-655/11 P)
   2012/C 65/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2011, notified on October 7, 2011 (Case T-176/10),

               —

               Confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of January 28, 2010, notified on February 15, 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2),

               —

               Order Seven SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Seven For All Mankind, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               Firstly, the General Court committed a breach of procedure affecting the interests of the Appellant when assessing the distinctive character of the word SEVEN

               —

               Secondly, the General Court did not fulfil the requirements of settled case-law in assessing the notion of similarity between the trademarks referred to in Article 8(1)(b) of CTMR and did not take into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-109/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Tele Danmark A/S v Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK) (Equal treatment for men and women — Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC — Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC — Dismissal of a pregnant worker — Fixed-term employment contract)

text:
C 317/6                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
1.    The involvement of a holding company in the management of            court between Tele Danmark A/S and Handels- og Kontorfunk-
      companies in which it has acquired a shareholding constitutes        tionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK) — on the interpretation
      an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the       of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the             1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treat-
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           ment for men and women as regards access to employment,
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform           vocational training and promotion, and working conditions
      basis of assessment, where it entails carrying out transactions      (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and Article 10 of Council Directive
      which are subject to value added tax by virtue of Article 2 of       92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of
      that directive, such as the supply by a holding company to           measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
      its subsidiaries of administrative, financial, commercial and        at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently
      technical services.                                                  given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive
                                                                           within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
2.    Expenditure incurred by a holding company in respect of the          (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      various services which it purchases in connection with the           of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
      acquisition of a shareholding in a subsidiary forms part of its      (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans,
      general costs and therefore has, in principle, a direct and          Judges; D. Ruı́z-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von
      immediate link with its business as a whole. Thus, if the holding    Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
      company carries out both transactions in respect of which value      judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
      added tax is deductible and transactions in respect of which it is
      not, it follows from the first subparagraph of Article 17(2) of
      the Sixth Directive 77/388 that it may deduct only that
      proportion of the value added tax which is attributable to the
                                                                           1.   Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
      former.
                                                                                1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                                for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
3.    The receipt of dividends does not fall within the scope of value          training and promotion, and working conditions and Article 10
      added tax.                                                                of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
                                                                                introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                                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) are to be interpreted as precluding a worker from
                                                                                being dismissed on the ground of pregnancy
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         —     where she was recruited for a fixed period,
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                —     she failed to inform the employer that she was pregnant
                                                                                even though she was aware of this when the contract of
                          of 4 October 2001                                           employment was concluded,
in Case C-109/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Højesteret): Tele Danmark A/S v Handels- og
    Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK) (1)                            —     and because of her pregnancy she was unable to work
                                                                                during a substantial part of the term of that contract.
(Equal treatment for men and women — Article 5(1) of
Directive 76/207/EEC — Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC
— Dismissal of a pregnant worker — Fixed-term employ-                      2.   The fact that the worker has been recruited by a very large
                             ment contract)                                     undertaking which employs temporary workers frequently is of
                                                                                no relevance to the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive
                                                                                76/207 and Article 10 of Directive 92/85.
                           (2001/C 317/10)
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-109/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Højesteret (Supreme Court, Denmark) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 against the judgment delivered on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-156/95 between Diego Echauz Brigaldi, José Luis Buendía Sierra, César Montoliu García, María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López, Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-315/97 P)

text:
C 331/12              r EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 11 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 against the
                                                                         judgment delivered on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate                   Communities in Case T- 156/95 between Diego Echauz
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 Brigaldi, José Luis Buendia Sierra, César Montoliu Garcia,
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/5 7/EC                María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,
     of 22 November 1994 (') on common rules and                         Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López,
     standards for ship inspection and survey organizations              Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María
     and     for    the     relevant   activities   of    maritime       Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego
     administrations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil          González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín, Julio
     its obligations under that directive and under the                  Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray and
     Treaty,                                                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-315/97 P)
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                                        ( 97/C 331/22 )
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 July 1997
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in Case T-156/95 between
                                                                         Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Cesar
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, whereby a directive is                     Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz Monroy, Carmen
binding upon each Member State to which it is addressed                  Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel
as to the result to be achieved, requires Member States to               Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia
comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in               Velazquez, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen
the directive . In respect of the directive cited in the                 Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez Marin, Eva Maria
Commission's pleadings, that time-limit expired on                       Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo
31 December 1995 without the Italian Republic having                     Fabra Utray and the Commission of the European
taken the necessary measures to comply.                                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities on 12 September 1997 by
(') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994, p. 20.                                    Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria
                                                                         Jesus Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Maria
                                                                         Carmen Labrador Rubio, and Leopoldo Fabray Utray,
                                                                         represented by Ramon Garcia-Gallardo, Abogado, with an
                                                                         address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
                                                                         B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, Brussels
                                                                         B-1050 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
1 September 1997 in the case of Verein zur Förderung des                 — declare the present appeal brought by the above
freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer                          officials to be admissible and well-founded,
                 Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the CFI of 9 July 1997 in
                          (Case C-3 14/97)                                    Case T-156/95 ('),
                            ( 97/C 331/21 )                              — order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the European Communities by an order of the                           — Manifest error of interpretation and application of the
Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna )                       Community legislation in force, specifically of opinion
of 1 September 1997, which was received at the Court                         201 /92 of the Board of Heads of Administration
Registry on 11 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling                       ( applied by way of the Commission's internal circular
in the case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs                    of 24 January 1992 ), of Article 128 ( b ) of the Protocol
im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer Spezialzeitschriften                         on Privileges and Immunities of the European
Verlag KG on the following question :                                         Communities         and     of  Article 20 of   the    Staff
                                                                              Regulations of Officials of the European Communities :
                                                                             the Court of First Instance has not taken account of
Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                             the fact that an official who legitimately wishes to
precluding application of legislation of Member State A                       maintain his official residence in Spain has no choice
prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B                      but to travel to his country of origin in order to
from selling in Member State A a periodically published                      exercise his right to vote .
magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in                  — Discrimination.
Member State B ?
                                                                         (') OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 27.


title: Case T-497/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/42

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission
   (Case T-497/08)
   (2009/C 32/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Frankfurt Hahn airport.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case C-65/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Oftalma Hospital Srl v CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte
   (Case C-65/17)
   (2017/C 144/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oftalma Hospital Srl

      Respondent: CIOV -Commissione Istituti Ospitalieri Valdesi, Regione Piemonte

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 9 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, (1) which provides that contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I B are to be awarded in accordance with Article 14 and Article 16, do such contracts in any case remain subject to the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, transparency and non-discrimination, pursuant to Article 43[EC], Article 49[EC] and Article 86[EC]?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, be interpreted as applying likewise to contracts having as their object services listed in Annex I B of the directive?

               3.

               Does Article 27 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which provides that where a contract is awarded by negotiated procedure the number of candidates admitted to negotiate may not be less than three, provided that there is a sufficient number of suitable candidates, preclude the application of a national law that, for public contracts signed before Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) relating to services listed in Annex I B of Directive 92/50/EEC was adopted, does not guarantee the opening up of public procurement to competition if the negotiated procedure is used?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, 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: Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-224/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96            1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 64/ 15
Action brought by Antonio Angelini against the                        objective fact of the person concerned being obliged to
Commission of the European Communities on 5 December                  transfer his residence elsewhere in order to comply with
                                 1995                                 Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter does not
                         ( Case T-222/95                              impose any further requirement or take any other factor into
                                                                      consideration .
                            ( 96/C 64/32
                                                                      In the applicant's submission, whilst the case-law has indeed
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       clarified the scope of the provisions of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                      it has done so in situations where legal requirements were
                                                                      not met ( failure to transfer residence or family property,
                                                                      transfer at the official 's own request and in his personal
An action against the Commission of the European                      interest, etc .) or in situations involving fraud . That is far
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     removed from the present case, in which there were no
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                    irregularities regarding the transfer of the applicant and his
1995 by Antonio Angelini , a former official of the                   family to another State , the renting of a home in Germany
Commission of the European Communities, resident at                   and the automatic return to Italy .
Ranco (Varese ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
Advocate with the right of audience before the Court of
Cassation of the Italian Republic, with an address for service        Finally, the applicant accuses the Commission of failing to
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                  take the judgment in Case T-508/93 Mancini into account in
Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                   the present case .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the measure whereby he was refused a
     resettlement allowance on resuming his duties at
     Ispra,
                                                                      Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Roger Tremblay,
                                                                      Harry Kestenberg and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux
— order the Commission to pay him the sums due under                  de Loisirs ( SELL ) against the Commission of the European
     Article 5 ( 2 ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations or                                     Communities
     those resulting from a fresh settlement of the amounts
     due to him under Article 38 of the Staff Regulations,                                     ( Case T-224/95 )
                                                                                96/C 64/33 )
— order interest at 8 % to be paid from the date of the claim
     until the date of settlement,                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 13 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1995 by Roger Tremblay, residing at Vernantes ( France ),
                                                                      Harry Kestenberg, residing at Saint Andre Les Vergers
The applicant, a scientific and technical official of the              ( France ) and the Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de
Commission at the Ispra establishment of the Joint Research           Loisirs ( SELL ), established in Paris ( France ), represented by
Centre, maintains that the refusal to pay him a resettlement          Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
allowance on his return from a period of service abroad in            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
                                                                      Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .
the Iter Home Central Team of Garching was unlawful . The
contested decision assumes that he neither encountered any
particular difficulties in resettling in his place of origin, nor
needed to carry out a fresh removal , having returned to his          The applicants claim that the Court should :
own home in Italy .
                                                                      — annul the Decision of the Commission of 13 October
The applicant first stresses the contradiction in the fact that,            1995 , in that it rejects the complaint,
although he had changed his residence twice , he was paid the
daily allowance on his return to Ispra but not the                    — consequently, order the Commission to carry out the
corresponding resettlement allowance in addition .                          necessary investigations in order to establish evidence of
                                                                            the agreement,
Moreover, the provisions of the Staff Regulations
concerning the installation allowance refer exclusively to the         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/ 16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 15 December 1995 by AssiDoman Kraft
                                                                      Products AB and six other wood pulp companies against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants, two operators of discotheques established in
France and the trade organization of which they are                                             ( Case T-227/95 )
members, contest the Decision of the Commission of                                                 ( 96/C 64/34 )
13 October 1995 , which in their view does not comply with
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 January in                             (Language of the case: English)
Case T-5/93 Tremblay . In that judgment, the Court of First
Instance annulled the Decision of the Commission of
12 November 1992 concerning an agreement between the                  An action against the Commission of the European
copyright-management societies in the other Member                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
States, which had resulted in Sacem abusing its dominant              Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
position by imposing excessive and discriminatory tariff              1995 by AssiDoman Kraft Products AB and six other wood
levels, in so far as that Decision 'rejects the applicants '          pulp companies, represented by John Pheasant, Solicitor
allegation that the market has been partitioned as a result of        and Christophe Raux, Avocat, with an address for service in
an alleged agreement beteween Societe des Auteurs,                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue
Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique and the                           Goethe .
copyright-management societies in the other Member
States '.
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should:
After resuming, in a purely formal manner, its examination            — annul the Commission Decision of 4 October 1995 ,
of that part of the complaint, the Commission officially
rejected it on 23 June 1995 on the basis of Article 6 of              — order the Commission to take all necessary steps to
Regulation ( EEC ) No 99/63 . Despite the observations                     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in
submitted by the applicants, the defendant institution                     Joined Cases . C-89, 104 , 114, 116 , 117 and
repeated its position in the contested Decision . According to             125—129/85 A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission of
the Commission, it is solely for the national courts to assess             31 March 1993 and, in particular, to repay to the
whether a concerted practice exists; they may of course                    applicants the fines paid by each of them or their
resort to a reference for a preliminary ruling under                       predecessors in title respectively, in the amounts set out
Article 177 .                                                              at Annex 6 thereto,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay interest on the said sums
The applicants maintain, first, that it is apparent from the               at
contested Decision that the Commission has not complied
with the requirements of the Court of First Instance and that                ( i ) the prevailing EMCF and EMI rates plus 1,5%
it did not in fact proceed to carry out an inquiry and the                          from the date on which the fines were paid by the
active investigations necessitated by the abovementioned                            Swedish addressees; or
judgment of 24 January 1995 . It has not, therefore,
complied with the obligations incumbent on an institution                  ( ii ) the prevailing base lending rate of the Banque
whose Act has been declared void, by taking the necessary                           Nationale de Belgique plus 1 % from the date on
measures under Article 176 to comply with the                                       which the fines were paid by the Swedish
judgment.                                                                           addressees,
The Commission was penalized by the Court because what                     in the amounts set out in Annex 9 to the application and
it did, and what it claimed to have done, was inadequate. It               continuing until the principal sum of the fines is repaid
was not open to it merely to act in the same way after the                 by the Commission, and
judgment was given as before . The Court annulled the
 Decision of the Commission because it did not constitute an          — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs .
 adequate response to the complaint of partitioning made
 against the agreement between copyright-management                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 societies . The Court did not annul the Decision and remit
 the matter to the Commission merely for that institution to          The applicants, or their predecessors in title, are among the
 refrain from carrying out an inquiry which, by reason of             addressees of the Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of
 their limited territorial jurisdiction, the national courts do        19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
 not have the means to undertake .
                                                                      of the EC Treaty (IV/29.725 — Wood Pulp ) by which the
                                                                       Commission imposed fines ranging from ECU 50 000 to
 The applicant further regards that conduct as a breach of the         ECU 500 000 . The applicants, who had never accepted the
 duty to provide a statement of reasons, as well as a misuse of        allegations of infringements, did not bring an application for
 powers .                                                              annulment of this Decision and paid the fines to the
                                                                       Commission. Upon application by other addressees of the
                                                                       Decision, the Court of Justice, by judgment of 31 March
                                                                       1993 in Joined Cases 89, 104 , 114 , 116 , 117 and 125 to
                                                                       129/85 , A. Ahlstrom Oy v. Commission, a number of the


title: Case T-653/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014  — Jaber v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Period for bringing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Locus standi — Burden of proof — Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 — Jaber v Council
   (Case T-653/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period for bringing proceedings - Partial inadmissibility - Locus standi - Burden of proof - Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment))
   (2015/C 007/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: M. Ponsard, D. Amaudruz and A. Boesch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Kyriakopoulou, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11), Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1), Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 45), Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 164, p. 14), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 611/2011 of 23 June 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 164, p. 1), Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ L 199, p. 74), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 of 1 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 33), Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ L 218, p. 20), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3), Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33), Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 53), Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 55), Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 3), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 8), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 110, p. 36), Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 156, p. 10), Council Decision 2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 45), Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 80), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 20), Council Regulation (EU) No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 23), Council Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 59), Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 81), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) Noo673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 8), Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 77), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1), and Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible, because out of time, in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 of 1 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

               2)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) Noo504/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Regulation No 611/2001 of 23 June 2001 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) Noo36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, since those acts do not concern Mr Aiman Jaber.

               3)

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782, and Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739, since those acts have been repealed and replaced.

               4)

               Annuls, in so far as the following acts concern Mr Jaber:

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

               5)

               Orders the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations to be maintained with respect to Mr Jaber, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until any dismissal of that appeal.

               6)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Jaber.

               7)

               Orders Mr Jaber to bear two thirds of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, of 25.2.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 1 October 1997 in Case C-345/95: French Republic, supported by Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v. European Parliament (Seat of the institutions - European Parliament - Part-sessions)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/3
     were granted that they were for a maximum of three                     sessions of the institution for 1996 to the extent that it
     years and restricted to specific work, in this case as a               does not provide for 1 2 ordinary plenary part-sessions
     specialist chef, for a specific employer.                              in Strasbourg in 1 996;
                                                                       2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs;
3 . Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 is to be interpreted
     as requiring account to be taken, for the purpose of
     calculating the periods of legal employment referred to           3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its
     in that provision, of short periods during which the                   own costs .
     Turkish worker did not hold a valid residence or work
     permit in the host Member State and which are not                 (') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
     covered by Article 6 (2) of that Decision, where the
     competent authorities of the host Member State have
     not called in question on that ground the legality of
     the residence of the worker in the country but have,
     on the contrary, issued him with a new residence or
     work permit.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
                                                                       in Case C-l/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Hellen
                                                                                Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern (')
                                                                       (Equal treatment for men and women — Public servant —
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Part-time employment — Calculation of length of service)
                         of 1 October 1997                                                         ( 97/C 357/05 )
in Case C-345/95 : French Republic, supported by Grand
      Duchy of Luxembourg v. European Parliament (')                                   (Language of the case: German)
(Seat of the institutions — European Parliament — Part-
                                sessions)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 97/C 357/04 )
                                                                       In Case C-l /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: French)                        of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                       ( Bavarian Administrative Court), Ansbach ( Germany), for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                       that court between Hellen Gerster and Freistaat Bayern —
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                                                                       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to the application of the principle of equal pay for men
In Case C-345/95 : French Republic ( Agents: Marc Perrin               and women ( OJ L 45, 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ) and Council
de Brichambaut and Denys Wibaux), supported by Grand                   Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit ) v.                        implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
European Parliament ( Agent: Gregorio Garzón Clariana,                 men and women as regards access to employment,
assisted by Christian Pennera and Hans Krück ) —                       vocational training and promotion, and working
application for annulment of the vote of the European                  conditions ( OJ L 39, 14. 2. 1976, p. 40 ) — the Court
Parliament of 20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.Murray ( Rapporteur ),
part-sessions of the institution for 1996 — the Court,                 President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                of the Sixth Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,               judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), M.
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                    1 . Article 119 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1997, in                       applying to employment relationships arising in the
which it:                                                                   public service.
                                                                       2 . A provision of national law which requires that, for
1 . annuls the vote of the European Parliament of                           the purposes of calculating the length of service of
     20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of part                        public servants, periods of employment during which


title: Case C-166/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 April 2012 — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 April 2012 — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení
   (Case C-166/12)
   2012/C 200/09
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Praze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Radek Časta

      Defendant: Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení

      Questions referred

               1.

               How must the concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’ in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to 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, as amended by Council Regulation No 723/2004 (the ‘Staff Regulations’), (1) be understood? Does that concept include the level of pension rights determined both in the form of the actuarial equivalent and in the form of the flat-rate redemption value as defined in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as laid down prior to the entry into effect of Regulation No 723/2004, or must it be identified with only one of those concepts, and if not, how does it differ from those concepts?

               2.

               Does Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in conjunction with Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, preclude application of the method for calculating pension rights provided for in Paragraph 105a(1) of Law No 155/1995 on pension insurance and in Government Regulation No 587/2006 laying down detailed arrangements on the reciprocal transfer of pension rights in relation to the pension scheme of the European Communities? In this context, is it relevant that that calculation method results, in a specific case, in the setting of pension rights offered for transfer to the EU pension scheme at a level of not even half the amount of the contributions paid by an official to the national pension scheme?

               3.

               Must the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-293/03 Gregorio My v Office national des pensions (ONP) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of calculating the value of pension rights to be transferred to the EU pension scheme by means of an actuarial method dependent on the period of insurance, the personal basis of assessment must also include the period during which, before the date of submission of an application for the transfer of pension rights, the EU official has already participated in the EU pension scheme?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968(1), p- 30.


title: Case C-559/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Birgit Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2016 — Birgit Bossen and Others v Brussels Airlines
   (Case C-559/16)
   (2017/C 053/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Birgit Bossen, Anja Bossen, Gudula Gräßmann

      Defendant: Brussels Airlines

      Question referred

   Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance calculated between the point of departure and the last destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown?

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


title: Case C-178/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — Action et défense de l'environnement de la Vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL (ADESA), Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne v Région wallonne

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — Action et défense de l'environnement de la Vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL (ADESA), Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne v Région wallonne
   (Case C-178/09)
   2009/C 180/52
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Action et défense de l'environnement de la Vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL (ADESA), Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) and Directive 2003/35/EC, (3) preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, (4) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case C-668/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
   (Case C-668/15)
   (2016/C 068/31)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S

      Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the prohibition on direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC (1) of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin be interpreted as precluding a practice such as the one in the present case, by which persons in an equivalent situation who are born outside the Nordic countries, a Member State, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are treated less favourably than persons born in the Nordic countries, a Member State, Switzerland and Liechtenstein?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative: does such a practice thus give rise to indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC — unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the affirmative, can such a practice in principle be justified as an appropriate and necessary means for safeguarding the enhanced customer due diligence measures provided for in Article 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.


title: Case C-291/10: Action brought on 11 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/28

         Action brought on 11 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-291/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/47/EC (1) of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The deadline for transposing Directive 2005/47/EC into national law expired on 26 July 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 195, 27/07/2005, p. 15.