title: Case T-194/01: Action brought on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V. against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
27.10.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 303/23
In support of his action for annulment, the applicant also               Grounds of claim:            Incorrect       interpretation   of
alleges infringement of the guidelines adopted by the Com-                                            article 7 (1) (b) of the Council
mission on 18 September 1999, breach of the principle of                                              Regulation No 40/94 — The mark
equal treatment and psychological harassment in the work                                              is sufficiently distinctive. The
place. Finally the applicant claims compensation for damage                                           Applicant claims further that the
he claims to have suffered.                                                                           burden to proof otherwise lays
                                                                                with the Board of Appeal. It is not
                                                                                up to the Applicant to show that
                                                                                article 7(1) (b) of the Council
                                                                                Regulation No 40/94 is not appli-
                                                                                cable.
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                              Market
                         (Case T-194/01)
                         (2001/C 303/37)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 August 2001 by the Government
                                                                         of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal                                   (Case T-195/01)
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by Unilever N.V.,
a company registered in Rotterdam (Netherlands) represented                                      (2001/C 303/38)
by Dr. Verna von Bomhard and Dr. Andreas Renck of Lovells
Boesebeck Droste, Alicante (Spain).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade             European Communities on 20 August 2001 by the Govern-
      Marks and Designs) of 22 May 2001 (Case R 1086/                    ment of Gibraltar, represented by Alastair Sutton, Michael
      2000-1) to provide that the trade mark at hand is eligible         Llamas and Walter Schuster, of White & Case, Brussels
      for registration as a Community trade mark;                        (Belgium).
—     alternatively, the decision be annulled;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         —     annul the Commission’s decision to open the procedure
                                                                               under Article 88(2), in the form of the letter of 11 July
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                2001 addressed to the United Kingdom;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Applicant for the Com-         Unilever N.V.
munity trade mark:
The Community trade            Three dimensional mark (Pebble            Pleas in law and main arguments
mark concerned:                shape)        —         Application
                               No 1 418 250 for certain goods
                               in class 3                                The Government of Gibraltar introduced a tax scheme under
                                                                         which certain companies, under certain conditions, were
Decision of the Exam-          Rejection of the Application              exempt from income tax and subject only to a fixed tax (the
iner:                                                                    exempt company legislation). That legislation was modified by
                                                                         several amendments before and after the accession of the
Decision of the Board of       Partial acceptance of the Appeal          United Kingdom and Gibraltar to the European Communities
Appeal:                                                                  in 1973.


title: Case T-466/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/34

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-466/15)
   (2015/C 337/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-335/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/55

         Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult)
   (Case T-335/07)
   (2007/C 269/99)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Volker Mergel (Wiesbaden, Germany), Klaus Kampfenkel (Hofheim, Germany), Burkart Bill (Darmstadt, Germany) and Andreas Herden (Wiesbaden) (represented by G. Friderichs, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the defendant of 25 June 2007 (Case R 299/2007-4);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Patentconsult’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 (application No 4 439 774).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the trade mark applied for is not descriptive and does not lacks the necessary distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-387/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 July 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Nidera B.V. and Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

   (Case C-387/16)
   (2016/C 343/48)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Other parties: Nidera B.V., Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

      Question referred

   Must Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as precluding a reduction in the interest that is normally payable under national law on a VAT overpayment (excess) which was not refunded (set off) in due time, which reduction takes into account circumstances other than those resulting from the actions of the taxable person himself, such as the relationship between the interest and the amount of the overpayment not refunded in due time, the period of time during which the overpayment was not refunded and the underlying reasons for this, as well as the losses actually incurred by the taxable person?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-430/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Ilona Baradics and Others v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — National legislation laying down minimum percentages for the security that a travel organiser must provide in order to refund, in the event of insolvency, money paid over by consumers)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/21

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Ilona Baradics and Others v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam
   (Case C-430/13) (1)

   ((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Package travel, package holidays and package tours - National legislation laying down minimum percentages for the security that a travel organiser must provide in order to refund, in the event of insolvency, money paid over by consumers))
   2014/C 112/25
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ilona Baradics, Adrienn Bóta, Éva Emberné Stál, Lászlóné György, Sándor Halász, Zita Harászi, Zsanett Hideg, Katalin Holtsuk, Gábor Jancsó, Mária Katona, Gergely Kézdi, László Korpás, Ferencné Kovács, Viola Kőrösi, Tamás Kuzsel, Attila Lajtai, Zsolt Lőrincz, Ákos Nagy, Attiláné Papp, Zsuzsanna Peller, Ágnes Petkovics, László Pongó, Zsolt Porpáczy, Zsuzsanna Rávai, László Román, Zsolt Schneck, Mihály Szabó, Péter Szabó, Zoltán Szalai, Erika Szemeréné Radó, Zsuzsanna Szigeti, Nikolett Szőke, Péter Tóth, Zsófia Várkonyi, Mónika Veress

      Respondents: QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Articles 7 and 9 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59) — Travel contracts concluded with a travel organiser under which the consumers have made payments on account and, in certain cases, paid the travel price in full — Situation in which the travel organiser has become insolvent before those consumers began their trip — Compatibility with Directive 90/314 of national legislation laying down minimum percentages for the security that a travel organiser must provide in order to refund, in the event of insolvency, money paid over by consumers.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours must be interpreted as precluding national legislation where the detailed rules laid down therein do not achieve the result of ensuring that the consumer is provided with an effective guarantee of the refund of all money paid over and repatriation in the event of insolvency on the part of the travel organiser. It is for the referring court to establish whether that is the case as regards the national legislation at issue in the dispute before it.

               2.

               Article 7 of Directive 90/314 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has no discretion as regards the ambit of the risks that fall to be covered by the security to be provided by the travel organiser or retailer for the benefit of consumers. It is for the referring court to determine whether the criteria laid down by the Member State concerned for setting the amount of the security have the object or effect of limiting the ambit of the risks that fall to be covered by the security, in which case they would clearly be incompatible with the obligations under Directive 90/314 and would constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of EU law which, subject to a finding of a direct causal link, might give rise to liability on the part of the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-670/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D'Agostino v Commission

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/12

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D'Agostino v Commission
   (Case T-670/13 P)
   2014/C 78/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D'Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission;

               —

               Dismiss the action brought by Mr D’Agostino in Case F-93/12 as unfounded;

               —

               Order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present instance;

               —

               Order Mr D’Agostino to pay the costs of the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Stay the proceedings until delivery of the judgment in Case T-368/12 P Commission v Macchia.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging a material error and a distortion of the facts, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) applied its judgment in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published, to the situation of a member of the contract staff who had not sought the renewal of his contract.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging errors of law, divided into three parts, based on:

                           —

                           an incorrect interpretation of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Staff of the European Union (CEOS) (with regard to paragraphs 56 to 58 of the judgment under appeal);

                           —

                           an error of law in the definition of the relationship between the interest of the service and the principle of legality (with regard to paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal);

                           —

                           an infringement of the limits on the judicial review of the CST and the fact that the CST therefore ruled ultra vires (with regard to paragraphs 59, 60 and 63).

               3.

               Third ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons (with regard to paragraphs 57 and 59 of the judgment under appeal).


title: Case C-574/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/38

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-574/08)
   (2009/C 44/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (1), or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/70/EC expired on 15 December 2007. However, at the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not adopted all the necessary implementing measures or, in any event, had not at that time informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-151/03 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Action devoid of purpose)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-151/03 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Action devoid of purpose)
   (2005/C 229/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-151/03: Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Cerignola (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agents: initially, K. Manji and subsequently C. Jackson, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to a document originating from a Member State — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case C-73/12: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Ahmed Ettaghi
   (Case C-73/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 303/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Criminal proceedings against

   Ahmed Ettaghi

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is clearly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-76/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 February 2006  by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on  29 November 2005  in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/2

         Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-76/06 P)
   (2006/C 108/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. (represented by: S. Mobley, H. Bardell and M. Commons, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses the application brought by Britannia in respect of the Decision;

               —

               annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to Britannia;

               —

               in the alternative to (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision as it pertains to Britannia, so as to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Britannia therein;

               —

               in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the CFI for judgment in accordance with the judgment of the ECJ as to the law;

               —

               in any event, order that the Commission bear its own costs and pay Britannia's costs relating to the proceedings before the CFI and the ECJ.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant maintains that:

               1)

               the CFI infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17/62/EEC (‘Regulation 17’) (1) by holding that the Commission lawfully applied the 10 % turnover cap under Article 15(2) to Britannia's turnover for the business year ending 30 June 1996, rather than the business year preceding the adoption of the Decision;

               2)

               the CFI infringed the principle of equality:

                           a)

                           by upholding the Commission's discrimination between undertakings being in essentially the same situation by applying the 10 % turnover cap, in the case of Britannia, to the last year of what the Commission considers ‘normal economic activity’, and, in the case of all other undertakings to whom the Decision was addressed, to the business year preceding the Decision; and

                           b)

                           by upholding the Commission's Decision which discriminates against Britannia in relation to the year to which the 10 % turnover cap is applicable in comparison with its practice in other directly comparable cases;

               3)

               the CFI infringed the principle of legal certainty:

                           a)

                           by upholding the Commission's use of a year other than the preceding business year in applying the turnover cap in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17. Certainty is required as to the absolute maximum level of penalty that might be imposed; and

                           b)

                           by interpreting Article 15(2) Regulation 17 in a way which imposes a penalty which does not correspond to the penalty laid down when the infringement was committed, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of undertakings.

      (1)  EEC Council: Regulation no 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 013, 21.02.1962, p. 204-211)


title: Case T-128/13: Order of the General Court of 14 October 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla, SA v OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Surrender of national trade mark — Action which becomes devoid of purpose in the course of proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/13

         Order of the General Court of 14 October 2013 — Vicente Gandia Pla, SA v OHIM — Tesco Stores (MARQUES DE CHIVÉ)
   (Case T-128/13) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Surrender of national trade mark - Action which becomes devoid of purpose in the course of proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 359/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vicente Gandia Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tesco Stores Ltd (Cheshunt, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (Case R 854/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Tesco Stores Ltd and Vicente Gandia Pla, SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-407/05: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Reyniers & Sogama BVBA v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Recovery of import rights — Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence or irregularity — Consequence of the lack of notification to the principal of the period for furnishing such proof)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/15

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Reyniers & Sogama BVBA v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Belgische Staat
   (Case C-407/05) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Recovery of import rights - Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence or irregularity - Consequence of the lack of notification to the principal of the period for furnishing such proof)
   (2006/C 178/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   National court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Parties

      Applicant: Reyniers & Sogama BVBA

      Defendant: Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Art. 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1), inserted by Art. 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 1), Art. 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 1990 on Community transit (OJ 1990 L 262, p. 1) and Art. 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1) — Recovery of import rights — Notification addressed, by the office of departure, to the principal inviting him to furnish the proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence — Failure to notify time-limit — Consequences in terms of the validity of the notification and the recovery of the customs debt
   Operative part of the order
   Article 36(2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990, with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal frontier of the Community, read in conjunction with Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, and Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 1990 on Community transit, read in conjunction with Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, must be interpreted as meaning that the office of departure must notify to the declarer the period of three months in which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or the irregularity was actually committed may be furnished to that office, to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, so that the competent authority can proceed with recovery only after having expressly indicated to the declarer that the latter has three months in which to furnish that proof, and that that proof has not been furnished within that period.

      (1)  OJ C 22 of 28.1.2006.


title: Case F-130/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Vinci v European Central Bank

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/32

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Vinci v European Central Bank
   (Case F-130/07)
   (2008/C 8/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Fiorella Vinci (Schöneck, Germany) (represented by: B. Karthaus, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank
   Form of order sought

               —

               Find that the inclusion of the defendant's letter of 5 March 2007 (07) 139a H KK7bk HEAL and of the letter of 5 March 2007 (07) 139b H KK/bk HEAL, and the storage of the ‘medical certificate’ of Dr Schön of 24 April 2007 in the personal file, and the inclusion of the result of the examination of the Deutsche Klinik für Diagnostik concerning the applicant's state of health of 2 April 2007 in the medical file, is unlawful;

               —

               Find that the defendant's decision of 3 September 2007 (07) 772 PSR JMC/cc APPE, by which it refuses to delete the personal data contained in the documents referred to under point 1 above, is unlawful;

               —

               Find that the defendant's order of 5 March 2007 to submit to a medical examination, lacks legal effect;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 10 000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks first an order finding that the inclusion of the documents referred to in that application in her personal file and in the separately kept medical file is unlawful. Second, the applicant seeks a finding that the refusal of the defendant to delete the illegally obtained personal data is unlawful. In its reasoning, the applicant claims that Staff Rule 5.13.4 of the European Central Bank (ECB), which does not provide a basis for the processing of the categories of personal data referred to in Article 10 of Regulation No 45/2001 of the Council and of the European Parliament of 18 December 2002 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (‘Regulation No 45/2001’), and which, contrary to Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation No 45/2001, does not lay down any objective which would make processing necessary, precludes the obtaining and storage of the medical data.
   Thirdly, the applicant seeks an order annulling the Commission's decision of 5 March 2007 by which the applicant was ordered to undergo a medical examination. The applicant derives the nullity from the objection of abuse of discretion and from the failure to observe the essential procedural rules which are contained in Staff Rule 5.13.4. That rule provides that it is only the ‘Medical Adviser’ established at the ECB who is entitled to order further measures of a medical nature such as examinations, and not the applicant's direct superior.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims compensation for non-material damage which she suffered as a result of having to undergo a full medical examination for which there was no adequate legal basis.


title: Case T-359/11: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/58

         Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-359/11) (1)

   2014/C 292/72
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-359/06: Action brought on 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/7

         Action brought on 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-359/06)
   (2006/C 249/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2001/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 amending Council Directive 89/655/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 19 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 195, p. 46


title: Judgment of the Court of 19 September 2000 in Case C-287/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Arrondissement de Luxembourg): State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects — Specific act of national legislation — Effect of the directive)

text:
C 335/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of                 d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, for a prelimi-
doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certifi-               nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993                   between State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and
L 165, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                       Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster — on the
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                        interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                    1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
P. Lédger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40),
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September              in particular Article 1(5) thereof, and of Articles 177 and 189
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) as regards the effect to
                                                                             be accorded to that directive — the Court, composed of:
1.    A doctor who has obtained in another Member State a diploma            Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      in specialised medicine which does not appear on the list of           L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Cham-
      specialist training courses in Article 7 of Council Directive          bers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,
      93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of           M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
      doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
      and other evidence of formal qualifications may not rely on            has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it has
      Article 19 of that directive to use the corresponding professional     ruled:
      title of specialist in the host State.
2.    The first sentence of Article 10(1) of Directive 93/16 must be
      interpreted as referring only to the right of beneficiaries of the     1.   A national court, called on to examine the legality of a
      system of mutual recognition of diplomas established by the                 procedure for the expropriation in the public interest, in
      directive to use their academic title, and if appropriate its               connection with the construction of a motorway, of immovable
      abbreviation, in the language of the Member State of origin or              property belonging to a private individual, may review whether
      the Member State from which they come. This does not affect                 the national legislature kept within the limits of the discretion
      the right of the host Member State to authorise the use in its              set by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
      territory of the academic title or an equivalent title in a language        assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      other than that of the Member State of origin or Member State               on the environment, in particular where prior assessment of the
      from which the person concerned comes.                                      environmental impact of the project has not been carried out,
                                                                                the information gathered in accordance with Article 5 has not
                                                                                been made available to the public and the members of the
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                         public concerned have not had an opportunity to express an
                                                                                opinion before the project is initiated, contrary to the require-
                                                                                ments of Article 6(2) Directive 85/337.
                                                                             2.   The terms ‘specific act of national legislation’ and ‘project’ used
                                                                                in Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 must be given an
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          autonomous interpretation.
                        of 19 September 2000
                                                                             3.   On a proper construction of Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337,
in Case C-287/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         a measure adopted by a parliament after public parliamentary
the Tribunal d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg): State of                            debate constitutes a specific act of national legislation within
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse                            the meaning of that provision where the legislative process has
                   Linster and Yvonne Linster (1)                                 enabled the objectives pursued by Directive 85/337, including
                                                                                that of supplying information, to be achieved, and the infor-
                                                                                mation available to the parliament at the time when the details
(Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of                               of the project were adopted was equivalent to that which would
the effects of certain public and private projects — Specific                     have been submitted to the competent authority in an ordinary
     act of national legislation — Effect of the directive)                       procedure for granting consent for a project.
                             (2000/C 335/11)
                      (Language of the case: French)                         (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-287/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal


title: Case C-338/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2008 — P. FERRERO e C. Spa v Agenzia Entrate — Ufficio di Alba

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2008 — P. FERRERO e C. Spa v Agenzia Entrate — Ufficio di Alba
   (Case C-338/08)
   (2008/C 260/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Regionale
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P. FERRERO e C. Spa

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate — Ufficio di Alba
   Questions referred

               1.

               Whether the withholding tax applicable to the dividend adjustment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited by Article 5(1) of Directive 435/90/EEC (1) (in the case in point the subsidiary opted for the agreement-based regime);

               2.

               As a subordinate point, in the case of an affirmative answer to the first question, whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of the Directive applies.

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 6.


title: Case C-40/16: Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Irene Uhden v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines N.V.

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Irene Uhden v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines N.V.
   (Case C-40/16) (1)

   (2016/C 326/36)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case C-393/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2014  — Council of the European Union v Alumina d.o.o., European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 — Importation of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2 — Determination of the normal value — Concept of ‘ordinary course of trade’ )

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2014 — Council of the European Union v Alumina d.o.o., European Commission
   (Case C-393/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 - Importation of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2 - Determination of the normal value - Concept of ‘ordinary course of trade’))
   2014/C 421/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G.M. Berrisch and subsequently by D. Geradin, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alumina d.o.o. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, avocats), European Commission

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-173/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Article 7 — Sui generis right — Database relating to football league matches in progress — Concept of re-utilisation — Localisation of the act of re-utilisation)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG
   (Case C-173/11) (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Article 7 - Sui generis right - Database relating to football league matches in progress - Concept of re-utilisation - Localisation of the act of re-utilisation)
   2012/C 379/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd

      Defendant: Sportradar GmbH, Sportradar AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), in particular Article 7 — Right of the maker of a database to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of part of the contents of the database — Concepts of extraction and re-utilisation (Article 7(2) of the directive) — Database containing information on football matches in progress (‘Football Live’)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that the sending by one person, by means of a web server located in Member State A, of data previously uploaded by that person from a database protected by the sui generis right under that directive to the computer of another person located in Member State B, at that person’s request, for the purpose of storage in that computer’s memory and display on its screen, constitutes an act of ‘re-utilisation’ of the data by the person sending it. That act takes place, at least, in Member State B, where there is evidence from which it may be concluded that the act discloses an intention on the part of the person performing the act to target members of the public in Member State B, which is for the national court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-21/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-21/16)
   (2016/C 118/13)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 131 and 138(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted, in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods, as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to grant VAT exemption to a seller domiciled in that Member State on the ground that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, is not registered in the VIES (2) database nor is subject in that country to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, although he has, at the time of the transactions, a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, which has been used in the transaction invoices, and the cumulative material conditions for an intra-Community supply have been fulfilled, namely, that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the purchaser and the seller has established that these goods were dispatched or transported to another Member State and that, after that dispatch or transport, those goods physically left the Member State of departure and were delivered to a taxable purchaser or legal person acting as such in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began?

               2.

               Does the principle of proportionality preclude an interpretation of Article 138(1) of Directive No 2006/112/EC to the effect that the benefit of the right to VAT exemption is to be denied in a situation where a seller, domiciled in a Member State, was aware that the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, although holding a valid identification number for the purposes of VAT in that other Member State, was not registered in the VIES database nor was subject to a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, but was convinced that that purchaser would be retroactively registered as an intra-Community operator?

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

      (2)  VAT Information Exchange System.


title: Case C-29/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2016 — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA
   (Case C-29/16)
   (2016/C 136/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Stralsund

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HanseYachts AG

      Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Companie Generali IARD SA

      Question referred

   Where the procedural law of a Member State provides for independent proceedings for the taking of evidence in which, by order of the court, an expert report is obtained (in this case the ‘expertise judiciaire’ in French law), and where such independent proceedings for the taking of evidence are conducted in that Member State and an action based on the findings of those independent proceedings is subsequently brought in the same Member State between the same parties:
   In that case, is the document by which the independent proceedings for the taking of evidence were instituted a ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 30(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? (1) Or is it only the document by which the action is brought that is to be regarded as being the ‘document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document’?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-36/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Furukawa Electric North America v OHMI (SLIM LINE)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Furukawa Electric North America v OHMI (SLIM LINE)
   (Case T-36/08) (1)

   2009/C 90/62

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-132/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Rebublic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 10 EC — Sixth VAT Directive — Obligations under domestic rules — Control of taxable transactions — Amnesty)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Rebublic
   (Case C-132/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 10 EC - Sixth VAT Directive - Obligations under domestic rules - Control of taxable transactions - Amnesty)
   (2008/C 223/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Rebublic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Obligations under the internal system — National law waiving the verification of taxable transactions effected in the course of a series of tax years
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)) for a general and indiscriminate waiver of verification of taxable transactions effected in a series of tax years, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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, and Article 10 EC.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-190/08: Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-190/08)
   (2008/C 171/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 10 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Case C-174/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2011 — Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2011 — Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann
   (Case C-174/11)
   2011/C 226/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Steglitz

      Respondent: Ines Zimmermann

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 13(A)(1)(g) and/or (2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) permit the national legislature to make the exemption of out-patient care services for those who are sick or in need of care dependent on the fact that, in the case of such organisations, ‘the costs of the care have been borne in at least two thirds of cases wholly or mainly by the statutory social security or social welfare authorities in the previous calendar year’ (Paragraph 4(16)(e) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993)?

               2.

               Is it relevant to the answer to this question, having regard to the principle of the neutrality of VAT, that the national legislature treats the same services as exempt under different conditions where they are carried out by officially recognised voluntary welfare associations, and corporations, associations of persons and funds serving purposes of voluntary welfare which are affiliated as members of a welfare association (Paragraph 4(18) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993)?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-199/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — János Kárász v Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Lack of implementation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/6

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — János Kárász v Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság
   (Case C-199/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Lack of implementation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2014/C 431/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: János Kárász

      Defendant: Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) by decision of 25 March 2014.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.07.2014.


title: Case C-606/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
   (Case C-606/12)
   2013/C 101/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Requesting court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dresser Rand SA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the transfer of goods to Italy from another Member State for the purpose of verifying whether those goods may be adapted to other goods acquired within Italy, without anything being done to the goods brought into Italy, come within the notion of ‘work on the goods’ referred to in Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in this connection, is it appropriate to assess the nature of the transactions which took place between F.B. ITMI and DR-IT?

               2.

               Is Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing in their legislation or practices that the dispatch or transport of goods is not to be treated as a transfer to another Member State except on condition that the goods are returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-502/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — Torrevisa v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/54

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Torrevisa v Commission
   (Case T-502/14)
   2014/C 282/71
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Torrevisa, SA (Torrevieja, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.


               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/21

         (2006/C 121/38)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 108, 6.5.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 96, 22.4.2006

      OJ C 86, 8.4.2006

      OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

      OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

      OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

      OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-250/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 May 2010 — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 May 2010 — Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-250/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Haltergemeinschaft LBL GbR

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Question referred

   Subject to an affirmative answer to the first question referred by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) on 1 December 2009 in the proceedings for a preliminary ruling already pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union as Case C-79/10, is the person leasing or chartering out his aircraft, including the jet fuel to be provided by him, entitled to the exemption from taxation provided for in Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51


title: Case C-312/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
6.9.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/23
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with            1 January 2002.
      Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
      sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the        (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
1 January 2002.
                                                                                (Case C-314/03)
( 1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.                                                                  (2003/C 213/43)
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
                         (Case C-312/03)
                                                                        —     declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (2003/C 213/42)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 on
                                                                              the transparency of financial relations between Member
                                                                              States and public undertakings and financial transparency
                                                                              in certain undertakings (1), and in any event by not
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before                   notifying the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           directive;
represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                  —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                        The time-limit for implementation of the directive expired on
      Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                        31 July 2001.
      the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
      sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 29.7.2000, L 193, p. 75.
      under that directive;
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Case T-670/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission (Action for annulment — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Association — Members not directly concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/57

         Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission
   (Case T-670/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 027/73)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Milchindustrie-Verband eV (Berlin, Germany) and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband eV (Berlin) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s Communication of 28 June 2014 entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), in so far as the sector for the operation of dairies and cheese-making (NACE 10.51) is not mentioned in Annex 3 to that communication.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Milchindustrie-Verband eV and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband eV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-100/10: Order of the President of the Court of 12 July 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/27

      Order of the President of the Court of 12 July 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      (Case C-100/10) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/51)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-534/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 59/10               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.3.2004
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission                    22 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      brought by Katja Susanne Candolin, Jari-Antero Viljaniemi,
                             Belgium                                    Veli-Matti Paananen, Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola, and
                                                                        Jarno Kalervo Ruokoranta on the following questions:
                         (Case C-534/03)
                          (2004/C 59/16)                                1.    Does the requirement in Article 1 of the Third Directive
                                                                              90/232/EEC (1), under which all passengers other than
                                                                              the driver are to be compensated from insurance for
                                                                              personal injuries arising out of the use of a vehicle, or
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                          any other provision or principle of Community law lay
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                    down restrictions in assessing the significance of the
15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                            passenger’s own contributory fault under national law, in
Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,                         connection with his right to compensation payable from
acting as Agents.                                                             compulsory motor vehicle insurance?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        2.    Is it consistent with Community law, in any situation
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                 other than the cases mentioned in the second subpara-
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  graph of Article 2(1) of the Second Directive 84/5/EEC (2),
      Commission Directive 2002/35/EC (1) of 25 April 2002                    to exclude or limit, on the basis of the conduct of a
      concerning the setting up of a harmonised safety regime                 passenger in a vehicle, his right to obtain compensation
      for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, or, in             from compulsory motor vehicle insurance for road
      any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                 accident damage? May that come into question, for
      measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its               example, when a person has entered a vehicle as a
      obligations under that directive;                                       passenger although he could have seen that the danger of
                                                                              an accident and of his suffering injury was greater than
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                          normal?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         3.    Does Community law preclude the driver’s intoxication,
                                                                              which influences his capability of driving the vehicle
                                                                              safely, from being regarded as such a factor to be taken
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on                     into account?
1 January 2003.
(1) OJ 2002 L 112, p. 21.                                               4.    Does Community law preclude the right of a car owner
                                                                              who is a passenger in the car to compensation for
                                                                              personal injury payable from compulsory motor vehicle
                                                                              insurance from being assessed more severely than that of
                                                                              other passengers on the ground that he permitted an
                                                                              intoxicated person to drive his car?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the [copy and paste]
by order of that Court of 19 December 2003 in the
case brought by Katja Susanne Candolin, Jari-Antero
                                                                        (1) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the
Viljaniemi, Veli-Matti Paananen, Vahinkovakuutusosake-                      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
        yhtiö Pohjola, and Jarno Kalervo Ruokoranta                         insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
                                                                            vehicles (OJ L 129 of 19.5.1990, p. 33).
                         (Case C-537/03)                                (2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
                                                                            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
                          (2004/C 59/17)                                    vehicles (OJ L 8 of 11.1.1984, p. 17).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the [copy and paste]
of 19 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on


title: Case T-98/14: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2016 — Société générale v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/44

         Order of the General Court of 2 March 2016 — Société générale v Commission
   (Case T-98/14) (1)

   (2016/C 136/60)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-234/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 859 — External transit procedure — Authorised consignor — Creation of a customs debt — Transit document relating to non-existent goods)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
   (Case C-234/09) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 859 - External transit procedure - Authorised consignor - Creation of a customs debt - Transit document relating to non-existent goods)
   2010/C 246/14
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: DSV Road A/S

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 1, 4(9) and (10), 92, 96 and 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Authorised consignor generating by mistake two transit documents for the same consignment of goods in the New Computerised Transit System (NCTS), thus assigning two different movement reference numbers to a single consignment — Customs debt arising following the impossibility of discharging the external Community transit procedure by presenting the goods to the customs office of destination — Charging of customs duty on goods which have been declared but do not physically exist

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as not applying to a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, where an authorised consignor generated by mistake two external transit procedures for one and the same consignment of goods, because the goods covered by the extra procedure do not exist and, as a consequence, that procedure cannot entail the creation of a customs debt pursuant to the above provision.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-103/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 March 2015 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 January 2015 in Case T-482/12 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/12

         Appeal brought on 3 March 2015 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 January 2015 in Case T-482/12 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

   (Case C-103/15 P)
   (2015/C 302/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (represented by: H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 9 January 2015;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for purposes of a decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is brought pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice against the order of the General Court of 9 January 2015 in Case T-482/12. In that order, the General Court dismissed Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V.’s application brought against the European Commission as inadmissible on the ground of incomplete production of documents and pleas in law. However, in accordance with the requirements laid down in the judgment of 22 May 2012 in Case T-300/10, the Commission was, apart from some exceptions, obliged to provide the appellant with complete documentation from the file concerning the LIEN-Contract 97-2011. Those requirements were not complied with: instead, the Commission provided numerous documents with blank spaces and passages that had been struck out, and failed entirely to produce a number of documents. In its application of 27 October 2012, Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. had comprehensively set out its objections, providing and referring to the letter of 27 July 2012 that it had addressed to the Commission and in which it requested the latter to take the consequential measures necessary pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, read in conjunction with the sixth paragraph of Article 254 TFEU. It also provided the General Court with the correspondence between the parties that resulted from that letter and, in addition, annexed that correspondence to its application.
   The appellant submits that, in its order which is the subject of the present appeal, the General Court alleged that the application did not satisfy the formal requirements laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and that the pleas in law had not been sufficiently stated. The appellant disputes this, submitting that it had not only succinctly set out the background to the application, the grounds thereof and all relevant information but had also done so in detail, which was by itself adequate to enable the General Court to comprehend the subject-matter of the action. The appellant takes issue, in particular, with the fact that the General Court also dismissed, as being inadmissible, its alternative head of claim requesting the General Court to annul in part the Commission’s decision of 28 August 2012 (by which the Commission handed over the incomplete documentation) — although in that regard the General Court took cognisance of the corresponding plea in law.
   In addition, the appellant claims that the General Court regarded the documents submitted by the appellant in annex form as being mere general references and did not take cognisance of them, even though they helped to clarify the pleas in law and documents in its application and for that reason constituted an integral part of the application. The appellant also takes issue with the General Court’s view that the appellant’s reply was ineffective even though, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the appellant had submitted that reply in order to supplement its application, and that it clarified its arguments and provided all of the contested documents. The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in the order under appeal, which, it submits, is based on serious procedural errors and by which the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to an effective legal remedy.


title: Case C-40/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 27 January 2014  — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon v Utopia SARL, operating under the business name Marshall Bioresources

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon v Utopia SARL, operating under the business name Marshall Bioresources
   (Case C-40/14)
   2014/C 102/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon

      Defendant: Utopia SARL, operating under the business name Marshall Bioresources

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an importer of animals specially prepared for laboratory use entitled to the relief from import duties provided for for goods of this type by Article 60 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1) when it is not itself a public establishment or an authorised private establishment which is principally engaged in education or scientific research, but its clients are establishments meeting those conditions?

               2.

               Must Rule 5(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that cages used for transportation of live animals intended for laboratory research should be categorised as packing materials or packing containers for the purposes of that rule?
               If so, must the words ‘clearly suitable for repetitive use’ in relation to such packing materials or packing containers be assessed in general or only in respect of re-use within the Union?

      (1)  OJ L 1983 105, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-3/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund): Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker (Freedom to provide services - Judicial recovery of debts - Authorization - Article 59 of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 54/2             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between the Queen                                          (Fifth Chamber)
and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte:
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
British Telecommunications pic — on the interpretation
of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June                 1990        in Case C-3/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
on     the   establishment    of    the  internal   market    for      the Landgericht Dortmund ): Reisebiiro Broede v. Gerd
telecommunications services through the implementation                                                Sandker ( 1 )
of open network provision ( OJ No L 192, 24 . 7. 1990,
p. 1 ) and on the interpretation and validity of Council               (Freedom to provide services — Judicial recovery of debts
Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of                     — Authorization — Article 59 of the EC Treaty)
open network provision to leased lines ( OJ No L 165 ,                                              ( 97/C 54/03 )
19 . 6 . 1992 , p. 27 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini and J. C.                                (Language of the case: German)
Moitinho de Almeida ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
Kakouris, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G.                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Tesauro, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                       published in the European Court Reports)
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 In Case C-3/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty by the Landgericht ( Regional Court )
                                                                       Dortmund ( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court between Reisebiiro
                                                                       Broede and Gerd Sandker on the interpretation of the
1 . Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the                  provisions of the EC Treaty relating to freedom to provide
     application of open network provision to leased lines             services, in particular Article 59 — the Court ( Fifth
     applies to telecomunications organizations within the             Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     meaning of Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 90/387/            President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward
     EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the                   ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fenelly,
     internal market for telecommunications services
                                                                       Advocate-General ; H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator,
     through the implementation of open network                        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
    provision. Inter alia, the two undertakings to which a             1996 , in which it has ruled :
     Member State has reserved, otherwise than according
     to objective, proportional and non-discriminatory
     criteria, the operation of international and in                   Article 59 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a national
    particular intra- Community telecommunications lines               rule which prohibits an undertaking established in another
     and likewise the undertaking to which a Member State              Member State from securing judicial recovery of debts
     has reserved, on the same terms, the operation of a               owed to others on the ground that the exercise of that
    public telecommunications network in part of its                   activity in a professional capacity is reserved to the legal
     territory constitute telecommunications organizations             profession.
     within the meaning of that provision. A Member State
     is entitled to impose the obligations laid down in                (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
    Article 7 of Directive 92/44/EEC on only some
     telecommunications          organizations,     since    the
     imposition of those obligations is sufficient to make
    available to users throughout the national territory a
     minimum number of leased lines complying with the
    specifications laid down by that Directive. In                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    particular, a Member State is entitled to impose the                                          ( First Chamber)
     obligations laid down in that provision on only those
     telecommunications organizations which are the                                          of 12 December 1996
    principal operators of telecommuncations lines in each             in Case C-38/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     of the geographical areas comprising its territory.               the Corte d'Appello di Ancona ): Ministero delle Finanze v.
                                                                                Foods Import Srl ( ] )
                                                                       (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Fish of
                                                                                the Molva molva kind)
2 . Examination of the questions referred for a
    preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor capable of                                           ( 97/C 54/04 )
    affecting the validity of Directive 92/44/EEC.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-38/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty by the Corte d'Appello di Ancona, for a