title: Case C-355/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — J.A. van der Steen v Inspector van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht (Sixth VAT Directive — Independent economic activity — Private limited company — Company's activities carried out by a natural person as sole director, sole shareholder and sole member of staff)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — J.A. van der Steen v Inspector van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht
   (Case C-355/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Independent economic activity - Private limited company - Company's activities carried out by a natural person as sole director, sole shareholder and sole member of staff)
   (2007/C 315/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.A. van der Steen

      Defendant: Inspector van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 4(1) 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) — Meaning of independent economic activity — Natural person having the sole activity of actually carrying out all the work of a private limited company as sole director, shareholder and member of staff.
   Operative part of the judgment
   For the purposes of the application of the second paragraph of Article 4(4) 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 — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, a natural person carrying out all work in the name and on behalf of a company that is a taxable person pursuant to a contract of employment binding him to that company of which he is also the sole shareholder, the sole manager and the sole member of staff, is not himself a taxable person within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-52/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 January 2016 — ‘SEGRO’ Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 January 2016 — ‘SEGRO’ Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala
   (Case C-52/16)
   (2016/C 136/22)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘SEGRO’ Kft.

      Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and rights of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, without at the same time prescribing, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts?

               2.

               Must Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation which — without considering other criteria — lays down the obligation to cancel the registration of the rights of usufruct and of use burdening agricultural land, which have been registered, pursuant to contracts concluded before 30 April 2014, in the name of companies or natural persons who are not close relatives of the proprietor of the land, and at the same time prescribes, in favour of the proprietors of the extinguished rights of usufruct and of use, compensation for the financial losses which, while it cannot be claimed in the context of the settlement of accounts between the parties, does arise from valid contracts?


title: Case C-192/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 May 2008 — TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 May 2008 — TeliaSonera Finland Oyj
   (Case C-192/08)
   (2008/C 197/12)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

      Defendants: Viestintävirasto, iMEZ Ab
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), when read in conjunction with recitals 5, 6 and 8 in the preamble to that directive and with Article 8 and Article 5 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that:

                           1 (a)

                           national legislation may provide, as in Paragraph 39(1) of the Finnish Communications Market Law, that any telecommunications operator has an obligation to negotiate on interconnection with another telecommunications operator and, if so,

                           1 (b)

                           a national regulatory authority can take the view that the obligation to negotiate has not been complied with where a telecommunications operator which does not have significant market power has offered another operator interconnection under conditions which the authority regards as wholly unilateral and likely to hinder the emergence of a competitive market at the retail level, where they have hindered in practice the second operator from offering its customers the opportunity to transmit multimedia messages to end-users subscribed to the telecommunications operator's network and, if so,

                           1 (c)

                           the national regulatory authority can in its decision require the aforementioned telecommunications operator, which therefore does not have significant market power, to negotiate in good faith on the interconnection of text and multi-media communications services between operators' systems in such a way that, in commercial negotiations, regard must be had to the objectives which interconnection seeks to achieve and negotiations must be based on the premiss that the operation of SMS and MMS services between operators' systems can be made subject to reasonable conditions so that users have the possibility of using telecommunications operators' communications services?

               2.

               Do the nature of iMEZ Ab's network and whether iMEZ Ab should be regarded as a public electronic communications networks operator have any bearing on the assessment of the questions set out above?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.


22 . 6 . 96         I EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/27
      Removal from the register of Case C-294/94 ( x )                        Removal from the register of Case C-230/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 180/64 )                                                           96/C 180/68 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of               By order of 19 March 19 96 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-294/94 ( reference for a                    from the register of Case C-230/95 : Council of the European
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de              Union v . European Parliament.
la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Luis
Carlos Quintanilha .                                                    (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-256/95 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/69 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-310/94 ( 1 )                 By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                            ( 96/C 180/65 )                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-256/95 : Commission of the
By order of 16 January 1996 , the President of the Second               European Communities v. French Republic .
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
C-310/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes ): Garage Ardon SA,
Bernard Martin — Garage Colin-Martin, Relais de
Saintonge SARL and Bernard Menet SARL v . Garage                              Removal from the register of Case C-318/95 ( )
Trabisco SA .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/70
C ) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       By order of 14 March 1996 , thue President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-318/95 : Commission of
                                                                        European Communities v. Ireland .
        Removal from the register of Case C-20/95 ( )                   (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                            ( 96/C 180/66 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                       Removal from the register of Case C-374/95 (')
 from the register of Case C-20/95 ( reference for a                                                  96/C 180/71
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
 la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Oscar            By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Weg.                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                         from the register of Case C-374/95 ( reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Southampton Industrial
                                                                        Tribunal ): James Paul Barker v . Service Children's
                                                                         Schools .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/95 ()
                             ( 96/C 180/67 )
 By order of 20 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-381/95 ( )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-33/95 ( reference for a                                                ( 96/C 180/72 )
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
 Saint-Nazaire ): SARL Polypièces v. Directeur des Services              By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
 Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique .                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-381 /95 : Commission of
 (') OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                         European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case T-42/04: Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Ermioni Komninou and 16 others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 85/28               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           3.4.2004
incident in which he was the victim on 29 October 2001,                  letter that no further action would be taken on their complaint.
whilst he was carrying out his functions at the Angola                   The applicants complained to the European Ombudsman
Delegation. That incident occurred when his hands came into              about the Commission’s treatment of their complaint to it.
contact with a whitish powder of an as yet unknown chemical-             The European Ombudsman’s decision was issued on 18 July
toxicological nature.                                                    2002. On 2 July 2003 the applicants lodged a fresh complaint
                                                                         with the Commission alleging new infringements relating to
                                                                         the same case. However, the Commission decided to continue
The applicant asserts that that incident affected his psychologi-        financing the project.
cal and physical well-being, adversely affecting his social life.
In support of those claims, the applicant alleges an absolute            The applicants claim that they should be awarded compen-
failure to state reasons and a breach of the regulations cited           sation, pleading non-material damage resulting from the
above.                                                                   Commission’s treatment of their complaints. More specifically,
                                                                         they plead that the Commission withheld information from
                                                                         them and misled them with regard to the progress of the case.
                                                                         That is to say, while initially and after receipt of their first
                                                                         complaint the Commission officials considered that Greece
                                                                         had not complied in the present case with the rules laid down
                                                                         by Directive 85/337, they subsequently changed their view
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Ermioni Komnin-                    and decided to fund the project, without, however, informing
ou and 16 others against the Commission of the European                  the applicants of that decision. In addition, the applicants allege
                          Communities                                    that the Commission’s rejection of their original complaint is
                                                                         based on a statement of reasons that is manifestly contrary to
                         (Case T-42/04)                                  Community law. They further submit that in its handling of
                                                                         their original complaint the Commission did not observe
                        (2004/C 85/55)                                   fundamental rules of impartiality, since the case was assigned
                                                                         to an official who subsequently engaged in political activity in
                                                                         Greece. Finally, the applicants plead that the Commission failed
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)                         to take the necessary measures to remedy the abovementioned
                                                                         forms of maladministration despite the fact that the European
                                                                         Ombudsman found infringements on the part of the Com-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                mission and despite the second complaint which the applicants
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               submitted.
European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Ermioni
Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas,
Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa,         (1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
Alexandra Dokou, Leonidas Grepis, Nikolaos Grepis, Fotios                    of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
Dimitriou, Zois Dimitriou, Petros Polosis, Despina Polosi,                   environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40).
Konstantinos Polosis and Thomas Polosis, resident in Parga, in
the prefecture of Preveza, Greece, represented by Pericles
Stroumpos, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     allow the present application for compensation;                           Removal from the register of Case T-273/99 (1)
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay to each applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 with                                            (2004/C 85/56)
      interest prescribed by law at a rate of 8 % from the
      judgment of the Court of First Instance until payment;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ entire costs.
                                                                         By order of 18 December 2003 the President of the Second
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Chamber (Extented Composition) of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
In 1995 the applicants submitted a complaint to the European             register of Case T-273/99: Autoservice J. Van Deursen B.V. v
Commission, alleging infringement by the Greek authorities of            Commission of the European Communities.
Directive 85/337 (1) in relation to the planning and construc-
tion of a biological sewage treatment plant in Preveza. By
                                                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
decision No C(1998) 2297 of 28 July 1998, the Commission
decided to finance that project from the Cohesion Fund. On
20 April 1999 the Commission informed the applicants by


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2003 in Case C-15/00: Commission of the European Communities v European Investment Bank (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Decision of the Management Committee — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 237 EC — Protection of the Communities' financial interests — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and (Euratom) No 1074/1999 — Applicability to EIB — Pleas of illegality — Independence of the EIB — Legal bases — Articles 280 EC and 203 EA — Proportionality — Statement of reasons)

text:
6.9.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 213/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Annuls Decision 1999/726/EC of the European Central Bank
                                                                                of 7 October 1999 on fraud prevention (ECB/1999/5);
                           of 10 July 2003                                   2.    Orders the European Central Bank to pay the costs;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parlia-
in Case C-11/00: Commission of the European Communi-                               ment and the Council of the European Union to bear their own
             ties v European Investment Bank (1)
                                                                                costs.
(European Central Bank (ECB) — Decision 1999/726/EC                          (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
on fraud prevention — Protection of the Communities’
financial interests — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
— Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 — Applicability to the
ECB — Plea of illegality — Admissibility — Independence
of the ECB — Article 108 EC — Legal basis —
Article 280 EC — Consultation of the ECB —
             Article 105(4) EC — Proportionality)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2003/C 213/01)                                                              of 10 July 2003
                                                                             in Case C-15/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ties v European Investment Bank ( 1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Decision of the Man-
                   in the European Court Reports)                            agement Committee — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction
                                                                             of the Court — Article 237 EC — Protection of the
                                                                             Communities’ financial interests — European Anti-Fraud
                                                                             Office (OLAF) — Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 and
                                                                             (Euratom) No 1074/1999 — Applicability to EIB — Pleas
In Case C-11/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             of illegality — Independence of the EIB — Legal bases —
(Agents: C.W.A. Timmermans, H.P. Hartvig and U. Wölker,
                                                                             Articles 280 EC and 203 EA — Proportionality — Statement
and, subsequently, J.-L. Dewost, H.P. Hartvig and U. Wölker)                                              of reasons)
supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M.A. Fiers-
tra, and, subsequently, J. van Bakel) by European Parliament
(Agents: J. Schoo and H. Duintjer Tebbens) and by Council of                                           (2003/C 213/02)
the European Union (Agents: J. Aussant F. van Craeyenest and
F. Anton) v European Investment Bank (Agents: A. Sáinz de                                        (Language of the case: French)
Vicuña and C. Zilioli, assisted by A. Dashwood, barrister):
Application for annulment of Decision 1999/726/EC of the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
European Central Bank of 7 October 1999 on fraud prevention                                     in the European Court Reports)
(ECB/1999/5) (OJ 1999 L 291, p. 36), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                       In Case C-15/00, Commission of the European Communities
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and                 (Agents: C.W.A. Timmermans, H.P. Hartvig and C. Gómez de
A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   la Cruz, and, subsequently, J.-L. Dewost, H.P. Hartvig and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:                C. Gómez de la Cruz) supported by Kingdom of the Nether-
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/2                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               6.9.2003
lands (Agent: M.A. Fierstra, and, subsequently, J. van Bakel)              Bench Division (Commercial Court) (United Kingdom), for a
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and H. Duintjer Teb-                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
bens) and by Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Aus-                court between Joseph Lennox, trading as ‘R. Lennox & Son’,
sant F. van Craeyenest and F. Anton) v European Investment                 and Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine, on the interpretation
Bank (Agents: A. Morbilli, and, subsequently, E. Uhlmann,                  of Article 9 of Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January
assisted by A. Barav): Application for annulment of the                    1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community
Decision of the Management Committee of the European                       trade in ovine and caprine animals (OJ 1991 L 46, p. 19) and
Investment Bank of 10 November 1999 concerning cooper-                     of various other Community provisions, the Court (Fifth
ation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Court,               Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-             President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von
chet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),               Bahr and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                     General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and               trar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which it has
A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Decision of the Management Committee of the
      European Investment Bank of 10 November 1999 concerning
      cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);
                                                                           1.    A Member State cannot prevent the importation of sheep
2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs;                      intended for slaughter when they arrive on its territory solely on
                                                                                the ground that they are accompanied by a Model II health
3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parlia-                certificate established by Annex E to Council Directive 91/68/
      ment and the Council of the European Union to bear their own               EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions
      costs.                                                                     governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals,
                                                                                which is provided for trade between Member States in ovine
                                                                                and caprine animals intended for fattening.
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
                                                                           2.    At the time of the facts in the main proceedings, Community
                                                                                law, and more particularly Directive 91/68 and Article 10 of
                                                                                Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
                                                                                veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view
                                                                                to the completion of the internal market, did not preclude a
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                         Member State from imposing a requirement under national
                                                                                law such as Italian Order No 600.3/VET/340/2/8920 of
                                                                                24 December 1996, as clarified by Explanatory Memorandum
                          of 3 July 2003                                         No 600.3/340/2/73 of 3 January 1997, that, when bovine
                                                                                and ovine animals originating in France, Ireland, Portugal or
in Case C-220/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        the United Kingdom were imported for slaughter, breeding or
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) Queen’s                              fattening, the health certificate accompanying those animals
Bench Division Commercial Court): Joseph Lennox, trad-                           state that they had been born and raised on a farm in which no
ing as ‘R. Lennox & Son’, v Industria Lavorazione Carni                          case of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy had been
                             Ovine ( 1)                                          registered during the previous six years.
(Agriculture — Animal health — Importation of ovine
animals — Health certificate — National safeguard
measures against Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopa-
                                thy)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                         (2003/C 213/03)
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-220/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s


title: Action brought on 31 July 1995 by Ittima Maremmana against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-154/95)

text:
No C 333/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
1 . dismisses the application in its entirety;                         of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Rue de la Porte
2 . orders the applicant to pay all the costs, including those         Neuve .
      of the proceedings for interim measures.
(') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities of 12 May 1995 , notified on 25 May
                                                                             1995 , discontinuing the EAGGF aid granted to it,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       — in the alternative, declare unlawful the steps taken for
                      of 11 October 1995                                     recovery of the sum of Lit 314 741 984,
in Case T-302/94 : Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          and seeks the reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings
                          (Inadmissibility)                            in accordance with the Rules of Procedure .
                            ( 95/C 333/27 )
                (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
In Case T-302/94 : Dimitrios Coussios, a former official of            The applicant obtained from the Commission by a decision
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                of 28 November 1984 aid in the amount of Lit 494 946 104,
by Georges Sakellaropoulous, of the Athens Bar, with an                of which Lit 314 741 984 was paid on 24 July 1987. The aid
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   was granted for the purpose of completing an aquaculture
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the                         production unit in Orbetello (Tuscany, Italy ) on the basis of
European Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —               a project submitted by the applicant. Since there had arisen a
application for annulment of the decision of Commission                difficulty while the project was being carried out not in
appointing Mr Claude Probst to the post of Head of Unit                respect of the aquaculture production plant but rather for
VII . C. 93 with effect from 1 December 1993 — the Court of            the construction of a shed required for use in the business,
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of                         the applicant company asked for the project to be
D. P. M. Barrington, President, and K. Lenaerts and                    considered concluded when it was 70 % completed, waiving
P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                 payment of the remainder of the aid in respect of the Lit
11 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                    314 741 984 previously granted . The Italian Ministry for
follows :                                                              the Merchant Navy informed the applicant that such a
                                                                       request could not be accepted since the company had not
                                                                       obtained the certificate of fitness for use of the plant which
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      was defined as a 'conditio sine qua non for payment of the
                                                                       aid'. By letter of 14 April 1994 the Commission informed
2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                   the applicant that, in the absence of such a certificate, the
                                                                       procedure for discontinuing the aid would be put into effect.
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .                                     The EAGGF aid granted to the applicant was dicontinued
                                                                       by way of the decision of the Commission of 12 May 1995 ,
                                                                       which is the subject-matter of these proceedings .
                                                                       The application is based on the following grounds :
Action brought on 31 July 1995 by Ittima Maremmana                     ( a ) Infringement of Community law
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-154/95 )
                                                                              — In the notice granting aid there is no mention of the
                            ( 95/C 333/28 )                                      relevant national authority having been designated
                                                                                ( Article 18 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                 No 2908/83 ). The Ministry for the Merchant Navy
                                                                                ' appears' during the course of the procedure . That
                                                                                central national authority, whenever, however or
An action against the Commission of the European                                  by whomever it has been appointed, is nonetheless
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                incompetent to carry out the duties laid down in the
Instance of the European Communities on 31 July 1995 by                          abovementioned regulation . Its 'insertion' into the
Ittima Maremmana, whose registered office is at Rome,                            procedure thus constitutes an infringement of that
represented by Sergio Barenghi and Alessandro Pallottino,                        regulation .
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 333/ 15
      — The decision discontinuing aid was taken on the                     Action brought on 28 August 1995 by Hedwig
          basis of the erroneous proposal of the Italian                  Kuchlenz-Winter against the European Parliament
          authority in infringement of the notice granting aid                                ( Case T- 164/95 )
          and contrary to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2908/83 . The
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/29 )
          only condition expressly provided for in the notice
          granting aid for its discontinuation was that the
          project should not have been begun within two                              (Language of the case: German)
          years . The Commission should have ascertained
          whether the issue of the certificate of fitness            An action against the European Parliament was brought
          constituted one of the 'conditions imposed' for the        before the Court of First Instance of the European
          project, within the meaning of Article 18 of the           Communities on 28 August 1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz
          Regulation, instead of 'referring' to the opinion of       Winter, residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by
          the Ministry for the Merchant Navy on the ( alleged )      Dieter Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel ( Federal
          need to obtain that certificate .                          Republic of Germany ), with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
                                                                     Roger Barthel, Bereldange .
      — Likewise, the notice granting aid and Regulation
          ( EEC ) No 2908/83 ( and Commission Regulation             The applicant claims that the Court should :
          ( EEC ) No 378/84 ) have been infringed and
          disregarded having regard to the fact that not only        — declare that the European Parliament has unlawfully
          was the certificate of fitness not a 'condition                failed to act in relation to the applicant, inasmuch as,
          imposed' by the notice granting aid, it was not even           following the pension rights adjustment effected in the
          a document which served a purpose or was linked                applicant's favour pursuant to paragraph 1587 etseq. of
          to establishing whether the plant had been                     the Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the
          constructed .                                                  applicant should not have been excluded from the
                                                                         sickness insurance scheme; the defendant omitted to
                                                                         prevent that from happening, in that it unlawfully failed,
      — The notice granting aid and the regulation which                 within the framework of its powers in relation to the
          governs it have been infringed inasmuch as                     scheme, to propose to the competent EC institutions the
          information as to whether the applicant fulfilled the          corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of
          conditions for the grant of aid for guidance                   Officials,
          programmes has not been taken into account,
          considered or asked for. The carrying out of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
          project, albeit with aid from Community, has
          enabled the creation of jobs; wealth has been              Pleas in law and main arguments :
          generated, production has been started and
          developed, all in conformity with the objectives of        The applicant, a former official of the Court of Justice and of
          the Community.                                             the Commission of the European Communities, is the
                                                                     divorced former spouse of an official of the Parliament. She
                                                                     contests the fact that, under Article 72 ( lb ) of the Staff
                                                                     Regulations , she ceased, with effect from 1 April 1995 , to
( b ) Breach of the principle of proportionality                     qualify for cover under the sickness insurance scheme of the
                                                                     Communities, since that provision of the Staff Regulations
      The principle of proportionality is breached by the            entitles the divorced spouse of an official who provides
      penalty of discontinuing the aid on a ground which is          evidence that he or she cannot be covered by any other
      formalistic rather than formal and which, it may be            public scheme of sickness insurance to remain covered by
      said, placing a personal construction upon it, goes            the Community scheme for a period of only one year from
                                                                     the date of the decree absolute of divorce .
      beyond and is contrary to the legislation — it being
      legally impossible to obtain the formal document —             Following her marriage, the applicant ceased to work as a
      when in fact the practical and positive outcome is that        Community official, having completed seven and a half
      the plant has been built and work and wealth have been         years' service. Throughout her marriage she was entitled, as
      created .
                                                                     the spouse of an official, to benefits under the Community
                                                                     sickness insurance scheme. After her divorce, the applicant
                                                                     was unable to obtain sickness insurance cover in Germany,
( c ) Misuse of powers                                               her country of origin, in either a compulsory or a private
                                                                     sickness insurance scheme, and has therefore been
                                                                     compelled to continue to live in the Grand Duchy of
      The decision to discontinue the aid is ultra vires
                                                                     Luxembourg, in order not to lose her entitlement to sickness
      inasmuch as it departs from the objective referred to          insurance cover. That situation is particularly difficult for
      in the notice granting aid and thus departs from               her, because she suffers from a serious illness.
      Community law and the purpose and aims thereof.
                                                                     The applicant complains that the European Parliament has
                                                                     failed, within the context of its powers, to take any initiative
                                                                     to fill the gap in the rules revealed in the relevant provision of
                                                                     the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-418/17: Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/55

         Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Eduard Meier v EUIPO — Calzaturificio Elisabet (Safari Club)
   (Case T-418/17)
   (2017/C 277/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eduard Meier GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Schicker and M. Knitter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Calzaturificio Elisabet Srl (Monte Urano, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Safari Club’ — Application for registration No 13 186 036

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 1158/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-65/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou against the Council of the European Union

text:
13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/29
— breach of the principle of subsidiarity, in so far as the              Action brought on 20 March 2000 by ‘B’ against the
    possibility for the applicant to be entitled to such leave                    Commission of the European Communities
    requires an amendment to the Danish legislation on the
    matter.                                                                                (Case T-66/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 20 March 2000 by ‘B’, of Tervue-
Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou                      ren, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
          against the Council of the European Union                      Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                         (Case T-65/00)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — rule that the purported decision of 4 March 1999 is not in
                        (2000/C 135/50)                                      fact a decision, and consequently restore the applicant’s
                                                                             rights;
                                                                         — in the alternative, annul the decision to withdraw the
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             dependent child allowance awarded to the applicant for
                                                                             her son, and the decision to reduce her expatriation
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      allowance with effect from 1 September 1997; and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 20 March 2000 by Angeliki Ioannou, resid-                 — in the alternative, annul the decision to withdraw the
ing in Brussels, represented by Jean van Rossum, of the Brussels             education allowance awarded to the applicant for her son
Bar.                                                                         with effect from 1 September 1997;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Council’s decision of 21 May 1999 refusing
    to appoint the applicant a probationary official of the              The applicant challenges the decision to withdraw her depen-
    institution;                                                         dent child allowance and education allowance, and the
                                                                         appointing authority’s decision to recover part of the allow-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  ances paid. The withdrawal of the allowances arose from the
                                                                         Opinion of the Heads of Administration No 188/89, of
                                                                         30 January 1990, of which the applicant was only able to take
                                                                         cognizance in February 1999, and which fixes an upper
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          income limit beyond which a child of a servant of the
                                                                         Communities may no longer be deemed to be a dependent
                                                                         child.
The applicant, a former employee of the Benelux Economic
Union assigned to the Secretariat responsible for implementing           In support of her claims, the applicants alleges:
the Schengen agreement, contests the appointing authority’s
refusal to appoint her a probationary official upon the                  — Infringement of the decision of 21 January 1998 concern-
integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General                     ing the exercise of authority granted under the Staff
Secretariat of the Council.                                                  Regulations to the appointing authority, in so far as
                                                                             decisions to grant and withdraw the awards at issue were
                                                                             not taken by the same authority as that which applies
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                              Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;
— infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and             — Infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff
    of the rights of the defence;                                            Regulations;
                                                                         — The inapplicability, or alternatively the illegality of the
— in the present case, a manifest error of assessment.                       Opinion of the Heads of Administration No 188/89;
                                                                         — Infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — Failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-95/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance de Paris): John Greenham v Léonard Abel (Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Prohibition on marketing foodstuffs to which vitamins and minerals have been added — Justification — Proportionality)

text:
C 85/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              3.4.2004
For the purposes of determining whether the ground for refusal set           First, the prior authorisation procedure must be readily accessible and
out in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 applies to such a mark, it        capable of being completed within a reasonable time and, if it leads
is irrelevant whether or not there are synonyms capable of designating       to a refusal, the decision of refusal must be open to challenge before
the same characteristics of the goods or services referred to in the         the courts. Secondly, refusal to authorise marketing must be based on
application for registration.                                                a detailed assessment of the risk to public health, based on the most
                                                                             reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of
                                                                             international research.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 5 February 2004
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-95/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the tribunal de grande instance de Paris): John Greenham                                             of 12 February 2004
                          v Léonard Abel (1)
                                                                             in Case C-218/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —                            the Bundespatentgericht (Germany): Henkel KGaA (1)
Prohibition on marketing foodstuffs to which vitamins and
minerals have been added — Justification — Proportionality)
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
                            (2004/C 85/04)                                   104/EEC — Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Grounds for
                                                                             refusal to register — Three-dimensional shape-of-product
                                                                                mark — Distinctive character
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-95/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) for a                                       in the European Court Reports)
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against John Greenham and Léonard Abel, on the
interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken                   In Case C-218/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                    EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                      ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by Henkel
judgment on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:                          KGaA, on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of
                                                                             First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                             approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they            marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the marketing                composed of C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the
without prior authorisation of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and          Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
marketed in another Member State, where nutrients such as vitamins           and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General:
or minerals have been added thereto other than those whose use has           D. Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal
been declared lawful in the first Member State, provided that certain        Administrator, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in
conditions are satisfied.                                                    which it ruled:


title: Case T-207/01: Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Government of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 303/27
Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Government                    Kingdom’s rights of defence, in so far as they constitute
of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European                     essential procedural requirements.
                         Communities
                                                                        Further, the applicant claims that the decision is incompatible
                        (Case T-207/01)                                 with Article 88 of the EC Treaty and that the Commission has
                                                                        violated the principle of proportionality and the principles of
                        (2001/C 303/42)                                 legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as well as failing to
                                                                        fulfil its duty to exercise due diligence.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        According to the applicant, the legislation in question cannot
                                                                        be qualified as non-notified new aid. The qualified company
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               legislation has already been in existence for 18 years. Further,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              the legislation was notified by the Government of the United
European Communities on 7 September 2001 by the Govern-                 Kingdom in 1998 within the framework of the Primarolo
ment of Gibraltar, represented by Alastair Sutton, Michael              group, which worked on the problem of the relationship
Llamas and Walter Schuster, of White & Case, Brussels                   between fiscal measures and State aid regulations. The present
(Belgium).                                                              proceedings of the Commission are a consequence of the
                                                                        findings of that group. The legislation in question should
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             therefore be regarded instead as existing aid under Article 88(1)
                                                                        EC.
—     annul the Commission’s decision to open the procedure
      under Article 88(2), in the form of the letter of 11 July         To pursue now the procedure in respect of non-notified new
      2001 addressed to the United Kingdom;                             aid would be to impose an unjustified burden with possibly
                                                                        grave consequences, especially since an investigation under
—     take such other or further measure as justice may require;        Article 88(1) EC would, for the applicant, constitute a measure
                                                                        having a comparable effect and less severe consequences. In
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                             addition, having regard to the time which has elapsed since
                                                                        the introduction of the system, the applicant considers that
                                                                        the decision is disproportionate.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant further claims that, since the introduction of the
In 1983 the Government of Gibraltar introduced a tax scheme             system, the interpretation of ‘State aid’ under EC law has
under which certain companies, under certain conditions, are            evolved, especially in relation to fiscal measures. At that time,
liable to income tax at a reduced rate (the qualified company           that type of measure was, according to the applicant, not
legislation).                                                           generally regarded as falling within the rules of the EC Treaty
                                                                        concerning State aid. There was therefore no reason to notify
                                                                        the legislation at that time. To regard that legislation now as
The Commission has decided to open a procedure under                    new aid would violate the principle of legal certainty and the
Article 88(2) EC, qualifying the legislation in question as non-        legitimate expectations of the applicant. The applicant refers
notified new aid. That decision is now contested by the                 to Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 659/1999, which provides
applicant.                                                              that, in the event of developments in the law, measures
                                                                        introduced before those developments took place are to be
According to the applicant, the Commission has violated                 regarded as existing aid.
Gibraltar’s rights of defence, by providing an insufficient
statement of the reasons for the contested decision and by              Finally, the applicant states that the Commission’s investigation
insufficiently hearing the Government of Gibraltar as the party         prior to the decision was too lengthy, and therefore constitutes
directly and individually concerned by the decision. By the             a breach of the Commission’s duty to exercise due diligence
same token, the Commission has violated the United                      and of the principle of good administration.


title: Case C-215/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage by judgment of that Court of 12 May 2003 in the proceedings between Salah Oulane and Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

text:
19.7.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/15
       d.    Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC is invalid by                          person invokes his right of residence imposes on its
             reason of the principles referred to in questions 2(a),                  own nationals no general duty to provide evidence
             2(c) or 2(h) are those principles to be interpreted as                   of identity?
             also prohibiting the national measure in question?
                                                                                c.    If the answer to Question 2a is in the affirmative,
( 1) Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the                       does Community law as it stands at present lay
     Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws,                         down any requirements in regard to the period
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States                   within which that Member State must afford the
     concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
                                                                                opportunity for the person concerned still to present
     products — Commission statement, OJ L 194, 18.7.2001, p. 26-
                                                                                a valid identity card or passport before it imposes
     35.
( 2) Council Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the                          an administrative penalty in the form of an order in
     approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                   respect of the presumed unlawful residence?
     visions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco
     products, OJ L 359, 8.12.1989, p. 1-4.
                                                                                d.    Does an administrative penalty in the form of an
                                                                                order, as referred to in Question 2c, namely the
                                                                                imposition of a detention order with a view to
                                                                                deportation pursuant to Article 59 of the Vw 2000
                                                                                before the period referred to in Question 2c has
                                                                                elapsed constitute a penalty which impinges dispro-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank                                   portionately on freedom to provide services?
’s-Gravenhage by judgment of that Court of 12 May 2003
in the proceedings between Salah Oulane and Minister
                                                                           3.   a.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, as
            voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie
                                                                                Community law stands at present, is freedom to
                                                                                provide services impeded where a detention order
                            (Case C-215/03)                                           with a view to deportation under Article 59 of the
                                                                                Vw 2000 is, in the interest of public policy, imposed
                            (2003/C 171/21)                                           on a person claiming to be a national of another
                                                                                Member State and a tourist for as long as he does
                                                                                not demonstrate his right of residence by presenting
                                                                                a valid identity card or passport, even where there is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                no obvious present and serious danger to public
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank                                     policy?
’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) of 12 May 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 19 May 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Salah Oulane                      b.    If that freedom is impeded in the manner described
and Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (Minister                          in Question 3a, is the period within which that
responsible for foreign nationals and Integration) on the                             Member State afforded an opportunity still to pre-
following questions:                                                                  sent a valid identity card or passport material for
                                                                                the purposes of establishing whether or not the
                                                                                impediment is justified?
As regards the first proceedings:
1.     As a consequence of the abolition of entry controls at                   c.    If that freedom is impeded in the manner described
       internal borders, must the third paragraph of Article 4(2)                     in Question 3a is it relevant, for the purposes of
       of Directive 73/148/EEC (OJ 1973 L 172) be interpreted                         establishing whether that impediment is justified,
       as meaning that the right of residence granted therein of                      whether or not the Member State subsequently pays
       a person who claims to be a national of another Member                         compensation in respect of the period during which
       State and a tourist has to be recognised by the authorities                    the person was detained pending production of
       of the Member State in which that person invokes his                           proof of nationality by means of a valid passport or
       right of residence only from such time as he has presented                     identity card, as is customary in that Member State
       his valid identity card or passport?                                           in the case of unlawful detention as an illegal alien?
2.     a.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,
             does Community law as it stands at present, in                4.   Where a Member State itself lays down no general duty
             particular in regard to the principle of non-discrimi-             to provide evidence of identity, does Community law as
             nation and the freedom to provide services, provide                it stands at present preclude, in particular in light of the
             grounds for making an exception thereto with the                   prohibition on discrimination, a Member State from
             result that the authorities of a Member State must                 imposing, in connection with the internal control of
             still afford to that person the opportunity to present             aliens, a measure such as detention as an illegal alien with
             his valid identity card or passport?                               a view to deportation under Article 59 of the Vw in
                                                                                respect of a person who claims to be a tourist for as long
       b.    Is it material to the answer to Question 2a that the               as that person does not demonstrate his alleged right of
             national law of the Member State in which that                     residence by presenting a valid identity card or passport?
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/16              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
As regards the second proceedings                                               —     as regards the Walloon Region, by failing to adopt
                                                                                the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
                                                                                and to take the measures necessary fully to transpose
5.   So long as a national of a Member State does not himself
                                                                                and implement Articles 3(1) and (2) and 5 of
     invoke the right of residence as the recipient of services
                                                                                Directive 91/676/EEC;
     vis-à-vis the Member State in whose territory he is
     residing, does Community law as it stands at present
     preclude that Member State from not regarding that
                                                                          —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     person as a national protected by a right of residence
     under Community law?
6.   Is the term ‘recipient of services’ in the context of freedom
     to provide services to be construed as meaning that, even
     where a person stays in another Member State for a long              Pleas in law and main arguments
     period, possibly longer than six months, is arrested there
     for an offence, is unable to give a fixed abode or residence
     and, furthermore, has no money or luggage, residence in
     another Member State itself provides sufficient grounds              Directive 91/676/EEC lays down a progressive procedure
     for having to assume that tourist and other services                 which the Member State are required to follow in order to
     associated with short-term residence are received such as,           reduce and prevent water pollution caused or induced by
     for example, accommodation and the consumption of                    nitrates from agricultural sources. To that end, they are to
     meals?                                                               establish which groundwaters, surface freshwaters and coastal
                                                                          waters in their territory are affected by pollution by nitrates
                                                                          from agricultural sources or which could be so affected
                                                                          (Article 3(1)). Once those waters have been defined, Member
                                                                          State must designate ‘vulnerable zones’ (Article 3(2)). They
                                                                          must then establish a code or codes of good agricultural
                                                                          practice, to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis
                                                                          (Article 4). Finally, Member States are to establish action
                                                                          programmes in respect of all vulnerable zones, which must
                                                                          consist of several measures laid down in the directive
Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission                           (Article 5). The directive provides that Member States are
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        to submit a report to the Commission every four years
                             Belgium                                      (Article 10).
                        (Case C-221/03)
                                                                          According to the Commission, Belgium appears to consider
                                                                          that the transposition and implementation of the directive in
                        (2003/C 171/22)
                                                                          Belgian law come under the competence of the regions.
                                                                          According to the Belgian authorities, the federal authority is
                                                                          competent only to designate the coastal and marine waters
                                                                          referred to in Article 3(1) and in paragraph A(3) of Annex I to
                                                                          the directive. That argument is not relevant in Community
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May                law. It is for the competent authorities of each Member State
                                                                          to ensure the full transposition of the directive. Moreover, as
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          regards the federal authority, the Commission does not have
represented by G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agent, assisted by
M. van der Woode and T. Cellingsworth, lawyers, with an                   knowledge of any measure designating marine or coastal
                                                                          waters. As regards the legislation of the Flemish Region and
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          the Walloon Region relating to transposition of the directive,
                                                                          the Commission notes that:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     the Flemish Region has not adopted any provision which
                                                                                designates waters affected by pollution or which could be
                                                                                so affected, in breach of Article 3(1) of the directive. As
—    declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has not complied
                                                                                for vulnerable zones, it has not taken account of the
     with its obligations under Directive 91/676/EEC (1):
                                                                                procedure and criteria laid down in Article 3 for their
                                                                                designation in its territory. Moreover, the Flemish Code
     —     as regards the Flemish Region, by failing to adopt                   of Good Agricultural Practice does not satisfy the require-
           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                   ments of Article 4 and of Annex II to the directive,
           and to take the measures necessary fully to transpose                nor does the Flemish action programme satisfy the
           and implement Articles 3(1) and (2), 4, 5 and 10 of                  requirements of Article 5 and of Annex III to the directive,
           Directive 91/676/EEC;                                                since it does not apply to all the vulnerable zones


title: Case T-675/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — K Chimica v ECHA

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/41

         Action brought on 16 December 2013 — K Chimica v ECHA
   (Case T-675/13)
   2014/C 45/72
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: K Chimica Srl (Mirano (VE), Italy) (represented by: R. Buizza and M. Rota, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul ECHA Decision No (2013) 3665 of 15 October 2013 and grant K Chimica SME status;

               —

               apply the preferential fees provided for SMEs;

               —

               annul invoice No 10029302 in the amount of EUR 9 300 representing the difference due in respect of the full fee tariff applied to K Chimica;

               —

               annul the administrative charge in the amount of EUR 19 900 imposed by ECHA by way of invoice No 10043954.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas.

               1.

               First plea, concerning the interpretation of Commission Recommendation No 2003/361 with respect to the criteria for classifying SMEs.

                           —

                           The applicant claim in this regard that, for purposes of classification as an SME, it is necessary to verify whether the target enterprise is an autonomous enterprise or rather forms part of a group of companies. Depending on the role performed by the target enterprise, it will be necessary to evaluate the financial data of the enterprises in the group and, in particular, the financial data of the ‘partner’ enterprises and those of the ‘linked’ enterprises.

                           —

                           On this point, the applicant submits that the basic rule for assessing the size of the target enterprise is the rule according to which, in addition to data relating to its size, the following data are to be added:

                                       (i)

                                       the data of any partner enterprise of the target enterprise situated immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights. 100 % of the data of any enterprise ‘linked’ to those ‘partner’ undertakings must be aggregated with the data relating to the target enterprise thus calculated,

                                       (ii)

                                       100 % of the data relating to the enterprises directly or indirectly ‘linked’ to the target enterprise. The data of any partner enterprise of the enterprises linked to the target undertaking immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights, must be aggregated with 100 % of the data relating to the enterprises linked to the target enterprise.

               2.

               Second plea, concerning the failure to recognise K. Chimica as an SME.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that, on the basis of Article 6 of the annex to Commission Recommendation No 2003/361, the data relating to K. Chimica’s possible classification as an SME are:

                                       (i)

                                       100 % of the data relating to K. Chimica;

                                       (ii)

                                       100 % of the data relating to I.C.B. S.r.l;

                                       (iii)

                                       40 % of the data relating to Medini Ltd;

                                       (iv)

                                       36.66 % of the data relating to ALO Inmobilien GmbH.


24 . 8 . 96         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                     No C 247/ 1
                                                               I
                                                         (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                             Swearing of the oath by a new member of the Court of Justice
                                                        ( 96/C 247/01 )
            Romain Schintgen, appointed judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by
            decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European
            Communities on 8 July 1996 ('), took the oath before the Court of Justice on 11 July 1996 .
            (M OJ No L 178 , 17 . 7. 1996 , p . 31 .
                                          Decisions adopted by the Court of Justice
                                                      on 12 July 1996
                                                        ( 96/C 247/02 )
            On 12 July 1996 the Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the following
            decisions :
            Attachment of Judge Schintgen
            The Court decided to attach Judge Schintgen to the Second and Sixth Chambers .
            Composition of the Second and Sixth Chambers
            1 . The composition of the Second and Sixth Chambers for the period from 12 July 1996 to
                6 October 1996 shall be as follows :
                Second Chamber
                Mr Hirsch, President
                Mr Mancini and Mr Schintgen, Judges
                Sixth Chamber
                Mr Kakouris, President
                Mr Hirsch, Mr Mancini , Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm and Mr Schintgen,
                Judges


title: Case F-44/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/85

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-44/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)
   2013/C 225/196
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for an order that the Commission pay a sum by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the request made by the Commission’s Medical Officer to the applicant’s doctor for certain information regarding the medical treatment received by the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 34.


               2.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/22

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht dated 19 May 2010 in the case of Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetlye Stiftung
   (Case E-5/10)
   2010/C 325/06
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 19 May 2010 from Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 May 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetlye Stiftung, on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force in Liechtenstein on 1 May 1995, constitute a (multilateral) treaty which, as a result of the prohibition of discrimination contained particularly in Article 4 thereof, prohibit an obligation to provide security for costs from being imposed on claimants who reside in another EEA Member State if claimants who reside in Liechtenstein are not obliged to provide such security for costs?
               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:

               2.

               Is the provision contained in Section 57(2) point 1 of the Liechtenstein Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure), whereby a waiver of the obligation on claimants who reside in another State to provide security is made conditional upon the possibility of enforcement in the country of residence, compatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular with the general prohibition of discrimination under Article 4 thereof, insofar as it applies to claimants who reside in an EEA Member State?


title: Case C-286/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Silvia Hosse v Land Salzburg (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4(2b) — Special non-contributory benefits — Austrian benefit intended to cover the risk of reliance on care — Classification of the benefit and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view of Regulation No 1408/71 — Dependant of the insured person)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Silvia Hosse v Land Salzburg
   (Case C-286/03) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(2b) - Special non-contributory benefits - Austrian benefit intended to cover the risk of reliance on care - Classification of the benefit and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view of Regulation No 1408/71 - Dependant of the insured person)
   (2006/C 131/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silvia Hosse

      Defendant: Land Salzburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 4(2b) and 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97 — Legislation of a province (Salzburg) under which the right to benefits covering the risk of dependency of a handicapped child who is a member of the family of a worker is subject to a residence condition — Concept of special non-contributory benefit — Interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 75) — Social advantage
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A care allowance such as that provided for by the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz does not constitute a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community but a sickness benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation.

               2.

               A member of the family of a worker employed in the Province of Salzburg who lives with his family in Germany may, where he fulfils the other conditions of grant, claim from the competent institution of the worker's place of employment payment of a care allowance such as that paid under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz, as a sickness benefit in cash as provided for in Article 19 of Regulation No 1408/71, in so far as the member of the family is not entitled to a similar benefit under the legislation of the State in whose territory he resides.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 20.09.2003


title: Case T-536/11: Action brought on 2 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/27

         Action brought on 2 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Commission
   (Case T-536/11)
   2011/C 355/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union to select the applicants’ bid submitted in response to the open call for tenders AO 10340 (lots 1, 3 and 4) ‘Computing Services — Software Development, Maintenance, Consultancy and Assistance for Different Types of IT Applications’ (1), as third contractor in the cascade mechanism for lots 1 and 4 and as second contractor in the cascade mechanism for lot 3, communicated to the applicants by letter dated 22 July 2011, and all the related decisions of the Office, including those to award the respective contract to the first and second cascade contractors; and

               —

               Order the Publications Office of the European Union to pay damages suffered on account of the loss of opportunity and damage to the applicants’ reputation and credibility in the amount of 3 450 000 euros (EUR); and

               —

               Order the Publications Office of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, for each lot.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Publications Office of the European Union has infringed the obligation to state reasons, that it has not properly disclosed the relative merits of the successful tenderer and, in general, that it has failed to comply with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the Publications Office of the European Union has infringed the tender specifications, as well as applied an award criterion contrary to Article 97 of the Financial Regulation and Article 138 of the Implementing Rules;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           manifest errors of assessment, vague and unsubstantiated comments of the evaluation committee, modification of the award criteria included in the call for tender a posteriori, not notifying new criteria to tenderers in due time and mixing selection and award criteria.

      (1)  OJ 2011/S 66 — 106099


title: Joined Case C-241/04 and C-242/04: Order of the President of the Court of  11 January 2006  (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria) — Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera SpA v Provincia di Genova and Others (C-241/04) and Acquedotto Nicolay SpA v Provincia di Genova and Others (C-242/04)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria) — Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera SpA v Provincia di Genova and Others (C-241/04) and Acquedotto Nicolay SpA v Provincia di Genova and Others (C-242/04)
   (Joined Case C-241/04 and C-242/04) (1)

   (2006/C 154/27)

      Language of the case: Italian.

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

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.08.2004.