title: Case C-571/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (Area of Freedom, Justice and Security — Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Directive 2003/109/EC — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Right to equal treatment with regard to social security, social assistance and social protection — Derogation from the principle of equal treatment for social assistance and social protection measures — Exclusion of ‘core benefits’ from the scope of that derogation — National legislation providing for housing benefit for low income tenants — Amount of funds for third-country nationals determined on the basis of a different weighted average — Rejection of an application for housing benefit owing to the exhaustion of the funds for third-country nationals)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia autonoma di Bolzano
   (Case C-571/10) (1)

   (Area of Freedom, Justice and Security - Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Right to equal treatment with regard to social security, social assistance and social protection - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment for social assistance and social protection measures - Exclusion of ‘core benefits’ from the scope of that derogation - National legislation providing for housing benefit for low income tenants - Amount of funds for third-country nationals determined on the basis of a different weighted average - Rejection of an application for housing benefit owing to the exhaustion of the funds for third-country nationals)
   2012/C 174/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bolzano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Servet Kamberaj

      Defendants: Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia autonoma di Bolzano

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Associazione Porte Aperte/Offene Türen, Human Rights International, Associazione Volontarius, Fondazione Alexander Langer

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bolzano — Protection of linguistic minorities — Provincial legislation giving effect to the fundamental principle of the national constitutional system that linguistic minorities are to be protected — Social policy — Application of different coefficients in order to determine the amount intended for housing allowances for citizens of the Union and for nationals of non-member countries — Different selection criteria applicable for the grant of the housing allowance to citizens of the Union and to nationals of non-member countries — Compatibility with Articles 2 and 6 TEU and with Articles 21 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Compatibility with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) and with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2003 L 16, p. 44) — Direct applicability of provisions of EU law –Compatibility with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 1 of Protocol No 12 thereto — Direct applicability of the ECHR pursuant to Article 6 TEU — Applicable sanctions for the purpose of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first and fourth to seventh questions referred by the Tribunale di Bolzano in Case C-571/10 are inadmissible.

               2.

               The reference made by Article 6(3) TEU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, does not require the national court, in case of conflict between a provision of national law and that convention, to apply the provisions of that convention directly, disapplying the provision of domestic law incompatible with the convention.

               3.

               Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding a national or regional law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, with regard to the grant of housing benefit, for different treatment for third country nationals enjoying the status of long-term resident conferred pursuant to the provisions of that directive compared to that accorded to nationals residing in the same province or region when the funds for the benefit are allocated, in so far as such a benefit falls within one of the three categories referred to in that provision and Article 11(4) of that directive does not apply.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Action brought on 27 February 1996 by 'U' against the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case T-24/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           1 fcN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/27
Action brought on 27 February 1996 by 'U' against the                 the Centre, towards which one month is counted for each
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     full year or part of a year of service completed by them, but
                       Training ( Cedefop )                           not in any event for a period of less than six months, or
                         ( Case T-24/96 )                             alternatively to apply for a measure to be taken having the
                                                                      same effect. If, upon the expiry of that period, the grounds
                           ( 96/C 133/59 )                            on which their secondment was allowed have not altered,
                                                                      the secondment can be extended . The Director undertakes
                (Language of the case: German)                        to provide special solutions in the interests of the staff and of
                                                                      the Centre , in compliance with his obligations as an
                                                                      employer .
An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      A general decision of the Director of the Centre of 7 July
of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      1995 , expressly referring to the framework agreement,
First Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
                                                                      provided for the applicant to be assigned for six months to a
1996 by 'U', represented by Dr Frank Montag,
                                                                      Community establishment in Berlin or seconded to a
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels , with an address for service in
                                                                      non-Community establishment there . By individual decision
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue .
                                                                      of 31 July 1995 , the Director of the Centre stipulated that
                                                                      the applicant should continue to perform his functions by
                                                                      working in the Office of the Commission in Berlin . In
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          accordance with that decision, the applicant has been
                                                                      working in the Commission's Berlin Office since
                                                                      1 September 1995 .
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of
     8 February 1996 ,                                                On 31 January 1996 the applicant applied for his
                                                                      ' secondment' to that Office to be extended . By letter of
— order Cedefop to pay the costs .                                    12 February 1996 the Director of the Centre notified the
                                                                      applicant of his decision of 8 February 1996 assigning the
                                                                      applicant to the Centre in Thessaloniki with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1 March 1996 . The letter stated that, if the applicant refused
                                                                      to transfer to Thessaloniki on that date , he would be
                                                                      regarded as having resigned .
The applicant has been employed since 1993 in the service of
the European Centre for the Development of Vocational                 The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
Training . He was initially employed for an indefinite period         decision, the defendant first of all refused to extend his
under an employment contract of 12 November 1 993 which               employment in Berlin, and, second, that it moved his place
provided that his place of employment was to be Berlin ,              of employment to Thessaloniki . He contends that both of
where the Centre had its seat at that time .                          those measures are unlawful , since there were insufficient
                                                                      grounds for their adoption , they infringed his rights, and
On 16 May 1994 the Council , acting on a proposal from the            they were incompatible with the principle whereby an
Commission , adopted Regulation ( EC ) No 1131 /94                    administration is bound by its own decisions, together with
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 337/75 establishing a                  the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     the general duty of an employer to have regard for the
Training, which provides that the Centre is to have its seat in       welfare and interests of his employees . As regards the alleged
Thessaloniki . The final recital in the preamble to that              alteration of his place of employment, the applicant also
Regulation provides : 'the aspects of the proposal which              complains that, by stipulating an unreasonably short
concern the staff of the Centre should be acted upon at a             deadline , the defendant failed to discharge its duty to have
later stage; . . . this Regulation does not prejudge the              regard for the welfare and interests of its employees , and
position of the Centre's staff'.                                      that that measure was intended to prompt the applicant to
                                                                      tender his resignation, so that it was not based on a proper
                                                                      exercise of discretionary powers .
On 23 January 1995 the Director of the Centre concluded a
framework agreement with the staff representatives
concerning ancillary social measures connected with the
relocation of the seat. That framework agreement provided
inter alia for the implementation of procedures aimed at              Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Orlando Lopes against
granting the members of the staff of the Centre the status of              the Court of Justice of the European Communities
officials of the Communities . The applicant states that, after
the staff of the Centre became subject to the rules applicable                                ( Case T-26/96 )
to officials and other servants of the European                                                 ( 96/C 133/60 )
Communities, he took part in an internal competition and
has since 1 January 1996 been ' stripped' of his status as an                         (Language of tbe case: French)
official . In addition, the framework agreement provided for
measures to be taken in respect of those 'who cannot leave             An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Berlin' ( point 4.3 ). Persons to whom this applies, and who           Communities was brought before the Court of First
furnish the relevant grounds, are entitled to be seconded for          Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 996 by
a period calculated on the basis of their period of service in         Orlando Lopes, residing in Luxembourg, represented by


title: Case C-700/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 31 December 2015 — LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d. v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 31 December 2015 — LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d. v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-700/15)
   (2016/C 111/08)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: LEK Farmacevtska Družba d.d.

      Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the provisions of Chapter 30 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a product, whose main component is an active ingredient (probiotic bacteria) contained in food supplements classified under tariff heading 2106 90 98 CN, is not to be classified in that chapter?

               2.

               For a product to be classified in Chapter 30 of the CN, is it sufficient that the manufacturer presents that product, which contains an active ingredient having beneficial effects on health in general which is often found in food supplements, as a medicinal product, and markets and sells it as such?

               3.

               In the light of the evolution of EU law regulating the market for medicinal products, must the concept of ‘clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics’ which, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is a condition for classification in Chapter 30, be interpreted as corresponding to the definition of medicinal product within the meaning of the provisions of EU law relating to medicinal products for human use?


title: Joined Cases C-55/07 and C-56/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy)) — Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07) v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen) (Directive 97/81/EC — Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers — Discrimination — Administrative obstacle limiting opportunities for part-time work)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy)) — Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07) v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen)
   (Joined Cases C-55/07 and C-56/07) (1)

   (Directive 97/81/EC - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Discrimination - Administrative obstacle limiting opportunities for part-time work)
   (2008/C 142/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Bozen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07)

      Defendant: Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Bolzano — Interpretation of Community law and, in particular, Article 137 EC and Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — National legislation requiring employers to send a copy of part-time employment contracts to the competent national authorities, which imposes a fine for failure to do so — Obligation of the Member States to eliminate legal and administrative obstacles which may limit the opportunities for part-time work — Principle of equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers
   Operative part of the judgment
   Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which requires that copies of part-time employment contracts be sent to the authorities within 30 days of their signature.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 21 March 1996 in Case C-335/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht, Recklinghausen): Proceedings by Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jäger against administrative fines (Social legislation relating to road transport - Derogation for refuse vehicles)

text:
No C 180/6             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
     to vote in the United Nations Food and Agriculture                  90/676/EEC of 13 December 1990, must be interpreted as
     Organization for the adoption of the Agreement to                  prohibiting the importation into a Member State of a
     promote compliance with international conservation                 medicinal product covered by that Directive with a view to
     and management measures by fishing vessels on the high             placing it on the market of that State or of administering it
     seas .                                                             there in the absence of prior authorization issued by the
                                                                        competent authority of that Member State.
2.   Orders the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                        (<) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
 3 . Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
 (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 21 March 1996
                                                                        in Case C-335/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Amtsgericht, Recklinghausen ): Proceedings by Hans
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                        Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager against administrative
                          ( First Chamber )                                                          fines ( 1 )
                       of 21 March 1996                                 (Social legislation relating to road transport — Derogation
in Case C-297/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made                                    for refuse vehicles)
by the Belgian Counseil d'État): Dominique Bruyère and                                           ( 96/C 180/12 )
                  Others v. Belgian State (')
 ( Veterinary medicinal products — Directives 81/851/EEC
                        and 90/676/EEC)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                            ( 96/C 180/ 11 )
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case C-335/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht ( Local Court),
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Recklinghausen, for a preliminarey ruling in the proceedings
                                                                        against administrative fines brought before that court by
                                                                        Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager on the
In Case C-297/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177             interpretation of Article 4 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'État for a                   No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              certain social legislation relating to road transport ( OJ No
court between Dominique Bruyère and Others and the                     L 370, 1985 , p . 1 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) of            of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the Chamber), P. Jann
Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September 1981 on the              ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to             Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
veterinary medicinal products ( OJ No L 317, 1981 , p . 1 ), in        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 1996 in
its original version and as amended by Council Directive               which it rules :
90/676/EEC of 13 December 1990 ( OJ No L 373 , 1990,
p . 15 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevôn                  1 . The words 'vehicles used in connection with . . . refuse
( Rapporteur ), Judges ; M. P. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.                  collection and disposal' in Article 4 (6) of Council
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                      Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of20 December 1985 on
judgment on 21 March 1 996 , the operative part of which is                 the harmonization ofcertain social legislation relating to
as follows :                                                                road transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles
                                                                            used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is not
                                                                            subject to more specific rules and for the transportation
Article 4 of Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of28 September                  ofsuch waste over short distances, within the context of
198Î on the approximation of the laws of the Member                         a general service in the public interest provided directly
States relating to veterinary medicinal products, in its                    by the public authorities or by private undertakings
original version and as amended by Council Directive                        under their control.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/7
2 . In areas not covered by Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85,                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Member States remain competent to adopt rules on                                        of 26 March 1996
     driving periods.
                                                                       in Case C-3 92/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division,
0 ) OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      Divisional Court ): The Queen v. H. M. Treasury, ex parte:
                                                                                British Telecommunications plc (')
                                                                       (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of
                                                                       Directive      90/531/EEC     —     Telecommunications       —
                                                                        Transposition into national law — Obligation to pay
                                                                         compensation in the event of incorrect implementation)
                                                                                96/C 180/ 14 )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber)
                       of 21 March 1996
                                                                                (Language of the case: Englisb)
in Case C-39/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Police, La Rochelle ): Criminal proceedings
                   against Pierre Goupil f 1 )
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Derogation
                        for refuse vehicles)                           In Case C-3 92/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                           ( 96/C 180/ 13 )                            of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                       Bench Division, Divisional Court, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the proceedings pending before that court between
                (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                         the Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte British
                                                                       Telecommunications pic, on the interpretation of
                                                                       Article 8 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 90/531 /EEC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of
          published in the European Court Reports)                     entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
                                                                       telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 297, 1990 , p . 1 ) —
                                                                       the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
In Case C-39/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of           C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and J. -P. Puissochet,
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Police ( Local Criminal              Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,
Court ), La Rochelle, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal         J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and
proceedings pending before that court against Pierre Goupil            J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; L.
on the interpretation of Article 4 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation          Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                           judgment on 26 March 1996 , in which it rules :
harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road
transport ( OJ No L 370, 1985 , p . 1 ) — the Court ( First
Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the
Chamber ), P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevon, Judges; P.
Léger, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein , Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   1 . It is not open to a Member State, when transposing into
21 March 1996 in which it rules :                                           national law Council Directive 90/531 /EEC of
                                                                            1 7 September 1 990 on the procurement procedures of
                                                                            entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
The words 'vehicles used in connection with . . . refuse                    telecommunications      sectors,    to determine     which
collection and disposal ' in Article 4 (6) of Council                       telecommunications services are to be excluded from its
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of20 December 1985 on the                       scope in implementation of Article 8 (1 ), since that
harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road                power is vested in the contracting entities themselves.
transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles used for
the collection of waste of all kinds which is not subject to
more specific rules and for the transportation of such waste
over short distances, within the context of a general service
in the public interest provided directly by the public                  2 . The criterion laid down by Article 8 (1 ) of Directive
authorities or by private undertakings under their                          90/531 , namely that 'other entities are free to offer the
control.                                                                    same services in the same geographical area and under
                                                                            substantially the same conditions ', is to be verified as a
                                                                            matter of law and of fact, having regard in particular to
 (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                             all the characteristics of the services concerned, the
                                                                            existence of alternative services, price factors, the
                                                                            dominance or otherwise of the contracting entity's
                                                                            position on the market and any legal constraints.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2001 in Case C-212/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Mons): Salvatore Stallone v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit — Condition of living together with the dependent members of the family)

text:
8.12.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/9
The interpretation given by the Court of Justice in Case 40/76             Article 68(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
Kermaschek continues to hold good in relation to Article 2(1), in          1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
conjunction with Articles 67 to 71a, of Regulation (EEC)                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons      Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in
and to members of their families moving within the Community, in           conjunction with Article 1(f)(i) thereof, precludes national rules, such
the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                 as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which receipt of a
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation             higher rate of unemployment benefit is conditional on the unemployed
(EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999.                                       person living together with the members of his family in the territory
                                                                           of the competent Member State.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 16 October 2001
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
in Case C-212/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Mons): Salvatore Stallone v
             Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (1)                        in Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit — Condition of                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
  living together with the dependent members of the family)                Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
                                                                                pean high-speed rail system)
                           (2001/C 348/15)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/16)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-212/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal du travail de Mons (Labour Court, Mons)
(Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              In Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communities
before that court between Salvatore Stallone and Office                    (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic
national de l’emploi (ONEM) — on the interpretation of                     (Agents: N. Dafniou and S. Chala) — application for a
Articles 1(f)(i) and 68(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                    administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                     Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interop-
persons and to members of their families moving within the                 erability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (OJ
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                    1996 L 235, p. 6), or, alternatively, by not communicating
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1)                     them to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Third Chamber,               EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,             Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                   (Rapporteur) S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2001,                L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
in which it has ruled:                                                     a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-310/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 213/22              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
capital sum owed, the defendant also owes interest accrued               Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
since the debt came into being and until full payment is made.           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-310/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/40)
Action brought on 22 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Office for
                 the safety of health products
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-308/03)                                  ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                        (2003/C 213/39)                                  an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
An action against the French Office for the safety of health             the Court should:
products (AFSSAPS) was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 22 July 2003 by the                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
R. Lyal and C. Giolitto, acting as Agents, with an address for                 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
service in Luxembourg.                                                         the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
                                                                               sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
                                                                               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         obligations under that directive;
the Court should order the defendant;
                                                                         —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
1.    to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 47 218,32 (Forty-
      seven thousand two hundred and eighteen euros and
      thirty-two cents) corresponding to EUR 41 000 in respect
      of the principal and EUR 6 218,32 in respect of accrued            Pleas in law and main arguments
      interest for delay up to 31 March 2003, at the rate of
      5,25 %;
                                                                         The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
2.    to pay EUR 6,74 (Six euros and seventy-four cents) per             1 January 2002.
      day in respect of accrued interest, at the same rate, from
      1 April 2003 until payment in full;
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
3.    to pay the costs of this case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause, since             Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of            the European Communities against the French Republic
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the                                    (Case C-311/03)
Treaty.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/41)
By refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the
Commission, the AFSSAPS has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
field of telematic applications of common interest and is liable         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
to repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.                    2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-346/98)

text:
C 340/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                    provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
     costs.                                                         to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
put forward in Case C-335/98; the time-limits prescribed
by the directives expired on 30 June 1996, 1 February
1996 and 1 January 1997 respectively.                               Action brought on 22 September 1998 by Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ L 167 of 18.7.1995, p. 17.                                                               Belgium
(2) OJ L 184 of 3.8.1995, p. 34.                                                            (Case C-347/98)
(3) OJ L 321 of 2.12.1996, p. 20.
                                                                                (98/C 340/21)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 22 September 1998 by the Commission of the
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission               European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
       of the European Communities against Ireland                  Gouloussis and Peter Hillencamp, acting as Agents, with
                                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                       (Case C-346/98)                              Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (98/C 340/20)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 September                 Ð declare that, by levying personal contributions of
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     13,07 % on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                      payable to persons who do not reside in Belgium and
Adviser, and Michael Shotter, a national official seconded              who are no longer subject to the Belgian social
to the Commission under an arrangement for the                          security system, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for            fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1);
Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
Centre Wagner.                                                      Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Persons who no longer work in an employed or self-
Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           employed capacity in Belgium and who have transferred
                                                                    their residence to another Member State are exclusively
    comply with Directive 94/60/EC of the European
                                                                    subject to the laws of that Member State. Consequently,
    Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994
    amending for the fourteenth time Council Directive              the Belgian authorities are not authorised to levy
                                                                    contributions on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
    76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions of the                payable to persons who are in such a situation.
    Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances (1),          Belgium wrongly refers to the benefits payable under
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,             Article 52 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to persons
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that         who sustain an accident at work or who contract an
    Directive; and                                                  occupational disease. Those benefits are not sickness
                                                                    benefits within the meaning of the first chapter of the
                                                                    regulation; they constitute other benefits in kind which are
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   specifically designed to meet needs arising from accidents
                                                                    at work or occupational diseases. Unlike the rule laid
                                                                    down in Article 33, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EEC)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    No 1408/71 contains no provision enabling the competent
                                                                    State to levy contributions in order to finance benefits
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall         payable as a result of an accident at work or an
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each              occupational disease.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid             (1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
down in the directive. That period expired on
20 December 1995 without Ireland having enacted the


No C 197/18        | EN j                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6. 1. 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-116/95 ( ] )              Register of Case C-l 16/95 : Commission of the European
                        (96/C 197/37)                               Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 3 May 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            (') OJ No C 159, 24. 6 . 1995 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 21 May 1996                                                         of 22 May 1996
in Case T-148/95 , W v. Commission of the European                  in Case T-140/94 , Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens
                       Communities ( ] )                                                v. European Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials — Permanent partial invalidity — Surgical                (Officials — Action for annulment — Action for
                            operation)                              compensation — Interinstitutional transfer — Article 29 (1 )
                        ( 96/C 197/38                                                    of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/39 )
              (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                    In Case T-140/94 : Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens,
                                                                    an official of the Court of Justice of the European
In Case T-148/95 : W, an official of the Commission of the          Communities, represented initially by Carlos de la Sotilla y
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by          Diez de Oñate, of the Madrid Bar, and subsequently by
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address          Sonia Sequéro Marcos, of the Malaga Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire              for service in Luxembourg at the residence of Enrique
Myson, 1 rue Glesener, against the Commission of the                Quijano, 53 rue de Beggen, against the European Parliament
European Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) —                    ( Agents : Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) —
application for, first, the annulment of the Commission's           application for the annulment of the European Parliament's
decision of 25 October 1994 fixing the applicant's                  decision of 10 January 1994 , rejecting the applicant's
permanent partial invalidity rate at 0 % for as long as he          complaint against the earlier decision of 16 August 1993
refused to undergo a surgical operation and, secondly, an           whereby the Parliament rejected his application for transfer
order requiring the Commission to pay the applicant's               to a post as a Spanish-language interpreter, and also for
doctors' fees and symbolic damages of one ecu in                    compensation for the non-material damage which the
compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                  applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the refusal of
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ),           such transfer — the Court of First Instance ( Second
composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the Chamber ), R.           Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner ( President of the
Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,        Chamber ), C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
21 May 1996 , in which it:                                          given a judgment on 22 May 1996, in which it:
                                                                    1 , annuls the Parliament's decision of 10 January 1994
1 , dismisses the application;                                             rejecting the applicant's complaint against the rejection
                                                                           of his candidature for the vacant post which was the
                                                                           subject of Notice No PE/LA/91 of 15 March 1993;
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
0 ) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                  3 , orders the Parliament to pay the whole of the costs.
                                                                     ( ! ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .


title: Case C-44/14: Action brought on 27 January 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/13

      Action brought on 27 January 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
      (Case C-44/14)
      (2014/C 71/22)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

         Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 (1) establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur);

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

            Infringement of Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol in conjunction with Article 5 thereof.
          Article 19 of the Eurosur Regulation establishes an ad hoc procedure for the participation of the United Kingdom and Ireland through cooperation agreements. It therefore establishes a procedure for the participation of those Member States distinct from that provided for in Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol, effectively placing the United Kingdom and Ireland in the position of a third country outside the European Union.

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 295, p. 11.


title: Case C-189/04: Action brought on 22 April 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/3

         Action brought on 22 April 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-189/04)
   (2004/C 179/06)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought on 22 April 2004 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Hellenic Republic, represented by Panayiotis Milonopoulos, legal adviser of the Community law section of the special legal service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and by Vasilios Kiriazopoulos, of the State legal service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27 Rue Marie-Adelaide.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare void the offsetting by the Commission of the European Communities of the amount of EUR 565,656.80 (participation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the construction of a common European Union diplomatic representation in Abouja, Nigeria) included in the total amount of offset of EUR 1,653,298.54 from the amount made available to Greece in the context of the relevant support programme.

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The Hellenic Republic maintains that the Commission did not pay due heed to the fact that the Additional memorandum of understanding was not ratified by Hellenic Republic and applies without the participation of the Hellenic Republic in the Abouja II project.
   Nor was sufficient credence paid by the defendant to the substantive acknowledgement by the Hellenic Republic of its debts arising out of its participation in the Abouja I project.
   In that connection the Hellenic Republic maintains that the Commission of the European Communities infringed the principles governing collection of amounts and the provision, clearance and confirmation of liabilities, as well as the principles governing collection by means of offsetting.
   In light of the foregoing the Hellenic Republic maintains that by issuing the offsetting notice the Commission infringed substantive provisions of law, that is to say, on the one hand, the provisions of Regulation No 3342/02 and, on the other, the provisions of Article 15 of the initial memorandum of understanding.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-328/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Maria Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern (Common agricultural policy — Support system for oil-seeds — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 84/27
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas and Istituto nazionale per                   L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), on the            No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now             Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting
Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC),the Court (Fifth Chamber),                for the President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General:
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,              J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-                 7 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
mans, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
2002, in which it has ruled:                                               Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
                                                                           on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
                                                                           Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
The concept of an undertaking, within the meaning of Articles 85           No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be interpreted as meaning
and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC), does not           that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of
cover a body which is entrusted by law with the management of a            plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and
scheme providing insurance against accidents at work and occu-             packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink,
pational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione      can only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as ink-jet
contro gli infortuni sul lavori (INAIL).                                   Epson Stylus Colour printers, is to be classified under sub-heading
                                                                           No 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           7 February 2002
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
in Case C-276/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Turbon Inter-
     national GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (1)                                                 7 February 2002
(Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Classification                  in Case C-328/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in the Combined Nomenclature of ink-cartridges compatible                  the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Maria
with Epson Stylus Colour printers — Inks (heading 3215)                           Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern (1)
— Parts and accessories of machines under heading 8471
                           (heading 8473))
                                                                           (Common agricultural policy — Support system for oil-seeds
                            (2002/C 84/43)                                           — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                     (2002/C 84/44)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        (Language of the case: German)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-276/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Turbon
International GmbH, acting in its capacity as successor to                 In Case C-328/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH, and Oberfinanzdirektion                     EC by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg (Germ-
Koblenz, on the interpretation of headings 3215 and 8473 of                any) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation                 that court between Maria Weber, Martin Weber and Freistaat
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical             Bayern, on the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC)
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                     No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of the final
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               6.4.2002
regional reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape               obligations under the said directives — the Court (First
seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1992/93 marketing              Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
year (OJ 1993 L 56, p. 18), the Court (Second Chamber),                    L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,                        Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate                 judgment on 11 December 2001, in which it:
General: C. Stix-Hackl, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judg-
ment on 7 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to forward to the Commission, for the
                                                                                period from 1995 to 1997, the report required under Article 18
Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no factor of              of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the
such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC)             disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive
No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of the final                    91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardising and ration-
regional reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed,               alising reports on the implementation of certain Directives
colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1992/93 marketing year.                    relating to the environment, within the period fixed by that
                                                                                provision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)
                       of 11 December 2001
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-376/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                                    (Second Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives                                         17 January 2002
75/439/EEC and 75/442/EEC — National reports on
  implementation — Failure to forward to the Commission)                   in Case C-394/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
                           (2002/C 84/45)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2002/C 84/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-376/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Støvlbaek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — application for a                                in the European Court Reports)
declaration that, by failing to forward to the Commission, for
the period from 1995 to 1997, the reports required under
Article 18 of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975
on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as                   In Case C-394/00, Commission of the European Communities
amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December                     (Agent:G. zur Hausen) v Ireland (Agent:D. O’Hagan): appli-
1991 standardising and rationalising reports on the implemen-              cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
tation of certain Directives relating to the environment (OJ               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
1991 L 377, p. 48), and under Article 12 of Council Directive              with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),                the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous
as amended by Directive 91/692/EEC, within the periods fixed               substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) or, in any event, by failing to
by those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its         notify the Commission of those provisions, Ireland has failed


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 July 1995 in Case T-545/93: Heinz Kschwendt v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Dependent child allowance - Education allowance - Medical expenses - Recovery of undue payment)

text:
28 . 10 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/9
(Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President,                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                                       of 13 July 1995
gave a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:
                                                                            in Case T-176/94: K v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ] )
1 . dismisses the applications;                                          (Officials — European Convention for the protection of
                                                                         human rights and fundamental freedoms — Complaint —
2 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those                            Right to respect for private life)
     incurred by the Council;                                                                      ( 95/C 286/22 )
3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                        (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 91 , 1 . 4 . 1993 , OJ No C 124, 6 . 5 . 1993 and OJ No      In Case T-176/94 : K, an official of the Commission of the
     C 159 , 11 . 6 . 1993 .                                             European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                         Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis
                                                                         Waelbroeck ) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                         Commission decision rejecting by implication the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 applicant's claim for compensation and of the express
                                                                         decision rejecting his complaint and, in addition, an
                             of 13 July 1995                             application for compensation — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-545/93 : Heinz Kschwendt v. Commission of the                  (Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President,
                      European Communities ( ] )                         C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
(Officials — Dependent child allowance — Education                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1 995 , in which it
                                                                         rules :
allowance — Medical expenses — Recovery of undue
                                 payment)
                              ( 95/C 286/21 )                            1 . the application is dismissed;
                  (Language of the case: French)                         2 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
In Case T-545/93 : Heinz Kschwendt, an official of the                   (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Glesener, v. Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Bertrand Wagenbaur )
— application for the annulment of the decisions of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission of 3 February 1993 , 29 March 1993 and                                           of 13 September 1995
2 1 June 1993 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to
certain benefits in respect of his daughter and ordering the             in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 : TWD
recovery of sums unduly paid — the Court of First Instance               Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v. Commission of the
( Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and                            European Communities ( 1 )
C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,               (State aid — Commission decisions suspending payment of
has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                      certain aids until previous unlawful aids have been
                                                                                repaid)
 1 . takes cognizance of the partial withdrawal of the claims                                      ( 95/C 286/23 )
     contained in the application, to the extent specified in
     paragraph 25 of the judgment;                                                     (Language of the case: German)
2 . dismisses the action;
                                                                         In Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 : TWD Textilwerke
                                                                         Deggendorf GmbH, established in Deggendorf ( Germany ),
3 . orders the defendant to pay all of the costs.                        represented by Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and
                                                                         Karl-Heinz Schupp, Rechtsanwalte, Deggendorf, assisted by
(') OJ No C 313 , 19 . 11 . 1993 .                                       Michael Schweitzer, Professor at the University of Passau,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                         M. Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA, 7—9
                                                                         Boulevard Royal, supported by Federal Republic of


title: Case T-193/16: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — NG v European Council (Action for annulment — EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 — Press release — Concept of ‘international agreement’ — Identification of the author of the act — Scope of the act — Meeting of the European Council — Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union — Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country — First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/31

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — NG v European Council
   (Case T-193/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 - Press release - Concept of ‘international agreement’ - Identification of the author of the act - Scope of the act - Meeting of the European Council - Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union - Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country - First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 121/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NG (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor, P. O’Shea and I. Whelan, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Council (represented by: K. Pleśniak, Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of an alleged agreement concluded between the European Council and the Republic of Turkey dated 18 March 2016 and entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18 March 2016’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by NQ, NR, NS, NT, NU and NV, Amnesty International, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission.

               3.

               NG and the European Council shall bear their own costs.

               4.

               NQ, NR, NS, NT, NU and NV, Amnesty International, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: References for preliminary rulings by the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium, by judgments of that court of 4 November 1996 in the cases of August De Vriendt, René Van Looveren, Julien Grare, Karel Boeykens, Frans Serneels, Fredy Parotte, Camille Delbrouck and Henri Props v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (National Office for Pensions) (Cases C-377/96, C-378/96, C-379/96, C-380/96, C-381/96, C-382/96, C-383/96 and C-384/96)

text:
No C 40/ 10           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November               1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings           27 November 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the cases of
before that court in the case of Ministère Public against             August de Vriendt ( C-377/96 ), Rene Van Looveren (C
B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sari on the following                378/96 ), Julien Grare ( C-379/96 ), Karel Boeykens ( C-380/
questions :                                                           96 ), Frans Serneels ( C-381 /96 ), Fredy Parotte ( C-382/96 ),
                                                                      Camille Delbrouck ( C-383/96 ) and Henri Props ( C-384/
A. Must Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty be interpreted               96 ) v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( National Office for
    as meaning that they preclude a Member State from                 Pensions ) on the following questions:
    requiring an undertaking established in another
    Member State and temporarily carrying out work in                 1 . Is Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (') of
    the first State :
                                                                           19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           it  leaves   the   Member          States free to determine
    1 . to appoint an agent or servant responsible for                     differently for men and women the age at which they
          keeping the individual accounts of employees who                 are respectively deemed to have become unfit for work
          provide services there ;                                         by reason of old age, for the purpose of acquiring
                                                                           entitlement to a retirement pension for salaried
    2 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to
                                                                           employees and, thus, to calculate those pensions
          the legislation of that State relating to the keeping
          of social documents;
                                                                           differently, in the manner indicated in this judgment ?
    3 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to             2 . Is that Article to be interpreted as precluding men and
          the legislation of that State relating to social                 women deemed to have become unfit for work by
          inspections;                                                     reason of old age as from the age of 65 and 60
                                                                           respectively who, as from that age , also lose their
    4 . to draw up an individual account for each worker;                  rights to social security benefit, such as unemployment
                                                                           benefit, from claiming an unconditional right to a
    5 . to keep a special staff register;                                  pension as from the age of 60 years, the amount of the
                                                                           pension being calculated differently, according to
    6 . to draw up working regulations;                                    whether the claimant is a man or a woman ?
    7 . to keep social documents ( staff register and
          individual account ) at the Belgian residence of a          3 . Should the expression ' pensionable age ' in Article 7 of
          natural person who is to keep those documents in                  Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 be
          his capacity as agent or servant;                                construed as meaning the age which gives rise to
                                                                           entitlement to a pension, or is it the age at which the
     8 . to issue an individual record for each worker,                     employee is deemed to have become unfit for work by
                                                                            reason of old age, in accordance with national criteria,
     where that undertaking is already subject to                           and enjoys the benefit of a replacement income
     requirements which, while not identical , are at least                 excluding other social security benefits of the same
     comparable on account of their aim in respect of the                   description ?
     same workers and for the same period of activity in
     the State where it is established ?
                                                                            Can that expression be interpreted as covering both of
                                                                            the above definitions ?
B. Can Articles 59 and 60 render inoperative the first
     paragraph of Article 3 of the Civil Code on Belgian               D OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
     public order legislation ?
 References for preliminary rulings by the Hof van                     Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Societe Louis
 Cassatie, Belgium, by judgments of that court of                      Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on
 4 November 1996 in the cases of August De Vriendt, Rene               24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
 Van Looveren, Julien Grare, Karel Boeykens, Frans                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
 Serneels, Fredy Parotte, Camille Delbrouck and Henri                  T-485/93 between Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the
 Props v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (National Office for                       Commission of the European Communities
                              Pensions )                                                       ( Case C-386/96 P)
      ( Cases C-377/96, C-378/96, C-379/96, C-380/96,                                              ( 97/C 40/21 )
         C-381/96, C-382/96, C-383/96 and C-384/96 )
                           ( 97/C 40/20 )
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                        1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between
 European Communities by judgments of the Hof van                      Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the
 Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 4 November               European Communities was brought before the Court of


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 April 1997 in Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte v. European Parliament (Officials - Decision recognizing the existence of an occupational disease - Revocation of an administrative act - Legitimate expectations - Reasonable period - Appeal)

text:
No C 199/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
      so far as the latter may favour forms of production                  interest at the annual rate of 8% to run from
      which are not in compliance with Community                           24 January 1991 until the date of actual payment;
      legislation.
(') OJ No C 54,4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         5 . orders the European Parliament to pay all the costs of
                                                                           the proceedings before both courts.
                                                                      0 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 17 April 1997
       in Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte v. European
                           Parliament (')                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Officials — Decision recognizing the existence of an                                            (First Chamber)
occupational disease — Revocation of an administrative
act — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable period —                                            of 17 April 1997
                               Appeal)                                in Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina
                           ( 97/C 199/02 )                            Agricola Industrial SA ( LAISA) and Cerestar Iberica SA
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union, supported by
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities H
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (Appeal — Sugar — Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          — Alignment of sugar prices — Isoglucose production)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                                              ( 97/C 199/03 )
In Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte ( represented by:
initially Eric Boigelot, subsequently Francesco Pasetti                               (Language of the case: English)
Bombardella ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities of
26 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1995 ] ECR-SC                In Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina
II- 1 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, save in so far       Agricola Industrial SA ( LAISA ) and Cerestar Iberica SA
as it orders the Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of           ( Legal Adviser: Paul Glazener ) — appeal against the
Bfrs 200 000 by way of compensation for non-material                  judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber) of
damage — the other party to the proceedings being:                    21 February 1995 in Case T-472/93 Campo Ebro and
European Parliament ( Agent: Francois Vainker, assisted by            Others v. Council [ 1995 ] ECR 11-421 , seeking to have that
Denis Waelbroeck ) — The Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                     judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,                 proceedings being Council of the European Union ( Agent:
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                 Arthur Brautigam ), supported by Commission of the
Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                European Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias
General; R. Grass, Registar, has given a judgment on                  Buhigues and James MacDonald Flett) — the Court ( First
 17 April 1997, in which it:                                          Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the
                                                                      Chamber ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward and M.
                                                                      Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
 1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance           Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997,
       of the European Communities on 26 January 1995 in              in which it :
      Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92 De Compte v.
       Parliament, save in so far as it orders the European
       Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of Bfrs
       200 000 by way of compensation for non-material                 1 . dismisses the appeal;
       damage;
2 . in Case T-90/91 , annuls the decision of 18 April 1991 ;          2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs and the
                                                                            intervener to bear its own costs.
 3 . in Case T-62/92, annuls the decision of 20 January
       1992;                                                           (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
4 . orders the European Parliament to pay the appellant
       the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 , together with default


title: Case C-174/07: Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/12

         Action brought on 30 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-174/07)
   (2007/C 140/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by extending by Article 2(44) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 (2004 Finance Law) to 2002 the tax amnesty provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 (2003 Finance Law), and providing expressly and in a general manner that assessment of taxable transactions effected in the 2002 tax period is to be abandoned, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a)(c) and (d) and Articles 193 to 273 of Title XI of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, which from 1 January 2007 repealed and replaced Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Commission points out that the Community legislature imposed a twofold obligation on Member States consisting not only in adopting all legislative measures required under national law to implement the Sixth VAT Directive but also in adopting all administrative measures necessary to ensure that taxable persons liable to VAT comply with the obligations arising under the Sixth Directive, primarily the obligation to pay the tax due as a result of effecting taxable transactions spanning a certain period of time. It would not have made any sense for the Community legislature to have provided for the harmonisation of VAT, nor would it have served any practical purpose, if national fiscal authorities were not required to implement a system of assessment and monitoring intended to ensure ‘the collection of taxes in a uniform manner in all Member States’, as stated in the fourteenth recital in the preamble to the Sixth Directive.

               2.

               The rules introduced by Articles 8 and 9 of Italian Law No 289/2002 went far beyond the bounds of administrative discretion conferred on the Member States by the Community legislature. In fact, instead of using that discretion to achieve more effective fiscal monitoring, by the above-mentioned law, the Italian State truly abandoned in a general, indiscriminate and preventive manner all forms of VAT assessment and verification, and is thus in direct breach of the requirements under Article 22 of the Sixth Directive and, as a consequence, of the general obligation under Article 2 to subject all taxable transactions to VAT. The Italian legislature has given all taxable persons liable to VAT and subject to its fiscal competence the possibility of bypassing entirely any form of fiscal control in relation to a series of tax years. A taxable person may acquire such a significant benefit by the payment of an amount calculated according to a standard method which no longer has any connection with the amount of VAT that would have been payable in respect of the cost of supplies of goods or services effected by the taxable person in the relevant tax year.

               3.

               A particularly striking example of this radical ‘separation’ between the tax liability that is calculated as being payable in accordance with normal VAT rules and the ‘quantum’ payable to qualify for the ‘graveyard amnesty’ is to be found in the case of a taxable person who has failed to file any tax return at all. The taxable person can regularise his position in respect of each tax year by a payment of Euro 1 500 in the case of a natural person or Euro 3 000 in the case of a company. A further example of the total absence of any link with the basis of assessment of transactions effected (but not declared) is to be found in the rules governing the ‘graveyard’ amnesty, which may be procured by submitting a supplementary statement. The amount payable by a taxpayer wishing to take advantage of the amnesty is calculated as a percentage (2 %) to be applied to the VAT that would have been payable in respect of the supply of goods or services effected in each tax year (or the VAT improperly deducted in respect of purchases in the same tax year).

               4.

               Such a general and preventive abandonment of any means of VAT verification is likely seriously to distort the proper functioning of the common VAT system. In particular, it would undermine the principle of fiscal neutrality, which precludes the different VAT treatment of traders effecting the same transactions. Any exception to the rule that VAT should be levied and collected effectively would result, on the one hand, in inflicting serious damage to the detriment of both Italian undertakings and those in other Member States which are subject to ordinary value added tax rules and, on the other hand, in seriously undermining the principle of ‘fair competition’ within the common market, set out in the fourth recital in the Sixth Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 347 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 145 of 11.12.2006, p. 1.