title: Case C-179/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 17 April 2000 in the case of Dr Gerald Weidacher, Rechtsanwalt, as trustee in bankruptcy of Thakis Vertriebs- und HandelsgesmbH v Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry

text:
22.7.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 211/9
     and Guarantee Fund, in so far as it excludes from                  2. Does the fundamental right to protect disposals or the
     Community funding certain amounts relating to the cereal              principle of proportionality preclude the application of
     sector, and                                                           Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 to surplus stocks
                                                                           which were attributable to disposals (purchases or resales)
                                                                           made
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (A) before the date on which that regulation was published,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 or
The Italian Government claims that the Commission’s decision               (B) before the time at which the circles concerned had to
is unlawful in so far as it proposes a financial correction for                 be notified that levies on surpluses were planned?
the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF accounts in
respect of the amounts set out in the application, or, in the
alternative, in so far as concerns the final settlement of the             If so, is that regulation wholly or partially void because it
invoices for sale of cereal into intervention, in so far as it does        infringes those fundamental rights, or is it to be interpreted
not accept LIT 11 952 457 079 claimed by the Italian State.                as meaning that no levy is payable in such cases?
                                                                        3. (A) Is the vendor of goods which it had already resold
(1) OJ 2000 L 61, p. 15.                                                        prior to 1 January 1995, but without physically hand-
(2) OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37.
                                                                                ing them over to the customer, to be regarded as the
                                                                                ‘holder’ of those goods on 1 January 1995 where
                                                                                I.  the goods and the proceeds therefrom were pledged
                                                                                to a bank, and pursuant to the pledging agreement:
                                                                                (a) that bank held, as at 1 January 1995, the keys
                                                                                to the proportion of the goods stored in a
                                                                                pledge warehouse, or
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that court of 17 April 2000 in the
case of Dr Gerald Weidacher, Rechtsanwalt, as trustee in                            (b) the transport documents, in particular the
bankruptcy of Thakis Vertriebs- und HandelsgesmbH                                        multimodal bill of lading relating to the remain-
       v Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry                                   ing proportion of the goods which, having
                                                                                cleared customs, were situated in railway trucks
                                                                                at an Austrian railway station on 1 January
                         (Case C-179/00)                                                 1995, are made out to the order of that bank
                                                                                and are in its possession, and
                         (2000/C 211/15)                                            (c) that bank had a 20 % interest in the proceeds
                                                                                of the sales transaction concluded by the
                                                                                pledgor,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Higher Administrative Court) of 17 April 2000, received                    and, furthermore, where
at the Court Registry on 12 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Dr Gerald Weidacher, as trustee in bankruptcy
of Thakis Vertriebs- und HandelsgesmbH v Federal Minister                       II. (a) the import charges were paid by the pledgor,
for Agriculture and Forestry, on the following questions:
                                                                                (b) the purchase money due to the pledgor was
1. Does the levying of tax on surplus stocks in the new                                  subsequently paid into the account which he
     Member States as from 1 January 1995, as provided for in                            held with that bank but which he was unable
     Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 of                               to use on account of the pledging agreement?
     19 December 1994 (1), constitute a transitional measure
     necessary to facilitate the transition from the existing
     regime in the new Member States to that resulting from                (B) Is the pledgor of the goods not the holder thereof if,
     application of the common organisation of the markets                      on 1 January 1995, he already intended to hold them
     under the conditions set out in Title IV: Agriculture of the               for his customer subject to the restrictions arising
     Act of Accession, within the meaning of Article 149(1) of                  under the pledge agreement? In that connection, does
     that Act, or is that regulation wholly or partially void                   the matter turn on whether or not that intention
     because of the Commission’s lack of competence?                            became outwardly apparent?
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.7.2000
     (C) In a situation such as that described in (A) or (B), is the     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         pledgee, the pledgor’s customer, the forwarder, the
         warehouse keeper or the carrier the ‘holder’ for the            — Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 (1) of
         purposes of this regulation?                                        29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for
                                                                             imports from the overseas countries and territories of
4. In the case of Tunisian olive oil falling within CN code                  sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
     1509 10, is the term ‘the import charge applicable in the
     Community of Twelve as at 31 December 1994’ within                  — Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3108/94
     invariably to be understood as meaning
     (A) the special levy of ECU 7,8 per 100 kilograms laid              Pleas in law and main arguments
         down in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
         No 287/94 of 7 February 1994 or                                 — Infringement of Article 109(1) of OCT Decision
                                                                             91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
     (B) the levy of ECU 79 minus ECU 12,69, that is to say,                 overseas countries and territories with the European Econ-
         ECU 66,31 per 100 kilograms, as provided for in                     omic Community (2), as last amended by Decision
         Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94                    2000/169/EC (3). The Commission has manifestly miscon-
                                                                             strued the facts, in particular so far as concerns the amounts
     or                                                                      of OCT sugar products imported into the Community,
                                                                             the situation on the Community sugar market and the
     (C) does the answer to this question turn on whether the                consequences for Community market participants. The
         importation of Tunisian olive oil within the quota laid             grounds on which Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision
         down in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 287/94 was               makes application of the power to introduce safeguard
         still possible in the Member States of the Community of             measures dependent are not present here. The Commission
         Twelve without any difficulty even at the end of 1994               consequently erred in concluding that the importation of
         or                                                                  OCT sugar could lead to a serious deterioration in the
                                                                             sugar sector and that safeguard measures were justified
     (D) is the rate of duty to be determined in each case on the            under Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision;
         basis of whether, if importation into an EC Member
         State had been planned, the taxable person would have           — Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision:
         been able to acquire a (preferential) quota at the time
         when the transaction was concluded?                                 — The contested safeguard measure fails to take account
                                                                                of the preferential position enjoyed by the OCT vis-à-
5. If Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 3108/94 is                          vis the ACP States and non-member countries;
     understood as having the meaning set out at 4(b), would
     it be void because it infringed the principle of equal
                                                                             — In view of the far-reaching consequences which the
     treatment?
                                                                                safeguard measures have for the Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                                Aruba and the undertakings concerned, the Nether-
(1) OJ 1994 L 328, p. 42.                                                         lands take the view that the safeguard measures under
                                                                                challenge are disproportionate, or at any rate that the
                                                                                Commission, contrary to the obligation imposed on it,
                                                                                failed to take those consequences into account when
                                                                                reaching its decision;
                                                                             — In so far as safeguard measures are necessary, less
                                                                                restrictive safeguard measures are possible, in particular
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the                               the provision of a minimum selling price;
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                      — Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2553/97 in conjunction
                                                                                with Article 2(2) of Regulation No 465/2000 infringes
                           (Case C-180/00)                                        the principle of proportionality set out in
                                                                                Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision, since the amount
                                                                                of security bears no relation to the amount of security
                          (2000/C 211/16)                                         for imports of sugar from ACP States and from non-
                                                                                member countries;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             — Misuse of powers: after the Council had, following protrac-
Communities on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the                             ted deliberation, voted unanimously, as required, to add
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-                 Article 108b to the OCT Decision by Decision 97/803/EC
pean Law Section in the Legal Service of the Ministry of                     — whereby the importation of sugar with ACP/OCT
Foreign Affairs, and Jantine van Bakel, of the Legal Service of              cumulation of origin was restricted — the importation of
that Ministry, The Hague, acting as Agents.                                  sugar with EC/OCT cumulation of origin and of mixtures


title: Removal from the register of C-376/95

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Case F-19/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/34

         Action brought on 13 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-19/12)
   2012/C 138/79
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s note concerning the applicant’s administrative status and for compensation for damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the undated note, bearing in the top right hand corner of the first of its two pages, the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011)217354 — 28/02/2011’ (sic), the details and content of which first came to the applicant’s attention on a date not before 6 April 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 15 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the note of 28 February 2011;

               —

               Annul the note of 14 September, received by the applicant on a date not before 20 October 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the note of 28 February 2011 and the note of 14 September 2011, in the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-415/10: Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/58

         Action brought on 18 September 2010 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-415/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nexans France SAS (Clichy, France) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet and J.-F. Le Corre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

      Form of order sought

               —

               rule that the procurement contract was awarded following a procedure during which the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, transparency, equal treatment and proper administration were infringed;

               —

               rule that the defendant erred in law by leaving the applicant in doubt as to the defendant’s decision to reject the applicant’s tender without evaluating it, and by informing the applicant of that decision only by its letter of 16 July 2010;

               —

               rule that the defendant erred in law by rejecting the applicant’s tender on the basis of Article 120(4) of the rules for implementing its Financial Regulation;

               —

               declare the decision of 16 July null and void;

               —

               declare the decision of 8 July null and void;

               —

               declare all the acts adopted by the defendant subsequent to the decisions of 8 and 16 July null and void;

               —

               award the applicant appropriate compensation of EUR 175 453, plus interest from the date of delivery of judgment until full payment (subject to determination of the precise value of the procurement contract and final calculation of lawyers’ fees, which cannot be given until the conclusion of these proceedings);

               —

               in the alternative, if it appears at the time judgment is delivered that it is unlikely that a new call for tenders will be issued for the procurement contract, award the applicant appropriate compensation of EUR 50 175 453, plus interest from the date of delivery of judgment until full payment (subject to determination of the precise value of the procurement contract and final calculation of lawyers’ fees, which cannot be given until the conclusion of these proceedings);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure F4E-2009-OPE-18 (MS-MG) for the conclusion of contracts for the supply of electrical equipment (OJ 2009/S 149-218279) and awarding the procurement contract to another tenderer. The applicant also seeks compensation for the loss allegedly caused by the contested decisions.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward a number of pleas, alleging:

               —

               infringement of the principles of legal certainty and transparency, since the defendant did not inform the applicant that its tender would be rejected without being evaluated if it refused to sign the draft contract annexed to the procurement contract, thus preventing the applicant from ascertaining the extent of its obligations as a tenderer;

               —

               infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the defendant gave assurances to the applicant that it would not automatically reject its tender;

               —

               infringement of the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunity for tenderers for a public procurement contract in that:

                           —

                           the tendering procedure was arranged in such a way as to favour the tender submitted by ICAS Consortium (the successful tenderer), since the time-limits imposed in respect of the procurement contract were clearly inadequate and disproportionate as they could not be met in practice by tenderers not having a special production line, possessed only by ICAS Consortium;

                           —

                           there was a conflict of interests which favoured the tender submitted by ICAS Consortium, since a person working for a member of ICAS Consortium took part in the tender selection procedure and another person working for a member of ICAS Consortium took part in the preparation of the call for tenders;

                           —

                           ICAS Consortium possessed information which placed it in an advantageous position, since a person employed by a member of ICAS Consortium visited, as an expert for ITER, the applicant’s factories in Korea and cable factories in China and Japan;

                           —

                           infringement of the principle of proper administration and Articles 84 and 94 of the Financial Regulation, since the evaluation procedure was proceeded with, even though only one tender remained and the defendant took no action when the applicant informed it of a conflict of interests that favoured ICAS Consortium;

                           —

                           an error of law committed by the defendant in rejecting the applicant’s tender on the basis of Article 120(4) of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation, since that article does not allow a tender to be rejected automatically without being evaluated, unless it fails to meet an essential requirement or a specific requirement in the specification;

                           —

                           the alleged infringements of the legal rules caused direct and certain loss to the applicant, for which it is justified in seeking compensation.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/28

         Removal from the Register of Case T-263/99 (1)

   (2004/C 239/60)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-263/99, Autobedrijf Chr. Kerres B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.


title: Case C-128/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Portugal) — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo v BPN — Banco Português de Negócios SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers — Failure to implement European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Portugal) — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo v BPN — Banco Português de Negócios SA
   (Case C-128/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector workers - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   2013/C 129/04
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo

      Defendant: BPN — Banco Português de Negócios SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21(1) and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) — Observance of the principles of equality and non-discrimination and of the right to fair and just working conditions — National legislation providing for salary reductions for certain public sector workers

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal), made by decision of 6 January 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case C-501/07 P: Order of the Court of 25 November 2008 — S.A.BA.R. SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment — Time-limit for initiating proceedings — Starting point)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Order of the Court of 25 November 2008 — S.A.BA.R. SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-501/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Time-limit for initiating proceedings - Starting point)
   (2009/C 69/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: S.A.BA.R. SpA (represented by: E. Coffrini and F. Tesauro, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and G. Conte, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2007 in Case T-176/07 S.A.BA.R. v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 June 2002 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid scheme (C-27/99 ex NN 69/98) provided for under Italian legislation in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               S.A.BA.R. SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Gelsenkirchen, by order of that court of 29 August 1997, in the case of Susanne Lewen v. Lothar Denda, as proprietor of the Firm Denda Zahntechnik (Case C-333/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97            ENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 357/ 15
     The State did not grant EPAC any aid. It merely                       how retaining the aid until a judicial decision is given
     corrected in very moderate terms and in some small                    could result in damage to competitors which could not
     measure the consequences of its earlier behaviour                     be made good, in the event that they were proven to
     which had seriously harmed the undertaking. When                      exist, by means of an action for compensation brought
     the Portuguese Government set up SILOPOR it did                       against the Portuguese State, in the event that it was
     not provide it with the sufficient capital for it to pay              found that it acted contrary to the Community system
     to EPAC the value of the assets transferred from one                  of State aid .
     to the other. It would have sufficed for SILOPOR to
     have paid its debt to EPAC for the latter not to have
     needed at all the State's guarantee and to re-establish
     totally its financial equilibrium .                               — It is not possible in law for the Portuguese State to
                                                                           adopt the measure imposed by the Commission by
                                                                           way of the contested decision .
— Infringement of Articles 222 and 90 of the EC Treaty
     ( arbitrary discrimination between public and private             — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations: the
     undertakings ): even supposing that the guarantee did                 reasons underlying the grant by the Portuguese State
     constitute State aid under Article 92 ( 1 ), the measure
                                                                           of the guarantee for the operation to consolidate
     would be justified under Article 90 (2 ) of the EC                    EPAC's bank debts, which are directly related to its
     Treaty. EPAC does not just import and market cereals.                 liability in respect of the situation concerning
     Its activity in this field is important enough in terms of            SILOPOR, which is unable to pay its own debt to
     the general economic interest, given the large volume                 EPAC, are sufficient to give rise to a legitimate
     of the cereal imported to supply the country. However,                expectation on the part of EPAC and the creditor
     the undertaking also ( i ) supplies seed, fertilizer and              banks that the guarantee is lawful.
     plant protection products to the Portuguese agriculture
     industry; ( ii ) purchases cereals from the Portuguese
     producers, the majority of whom are smallholders
     who thus overcome the difficulties of marketing
     their cereal; ( iii ) provides services to industry and
     agriculture such as, for example, laboratory facilities,
     technical assistance for agricultural production, acting
     as intermediary for harvest insurance and financing,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
     crop spraying, storage, drying and measuring of the               Gelsenkirchen, by order of that court of 29 August 1997,
     cereal .
                                                                       in the case of Susanne Lewen v. Lothar Denda, as
                                                                                proprietor of the Firm Denda Zahntechnik
                                                                                ( Case C-333/97)
— Infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the
     guarantee did not have the effect of distorting                                           ( 97/C 357/27 )
     competition or affecting intra-Community trade . The
     mere setting out of statistics showing the existence of
     commercial exchange between Portugal and the
     European Community in the cereal sector cannot be                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     accepted as sufficient evidence .                                 European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                       ( Labour Court) Gelsenkirchen, Third Chamber, of
                                                                       29 August 1997, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       24 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
— Infringement of Article 93 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty: the         Susanne Lewen v. Lothar Denda, as proprietor of the firm
     arguments put forward by the Commission to refrain                Denda Zahntechnik, on the following questions :
     from applying the exemptions under Article 92 ( 3 ), in
     particular those in subparagraph ( c ), are inadequate
     and contrary to the guidelines, defined by the
     Commission itself, which were considered admissible               1 . Is a Christmas bonus 'pay' within the meaning of
     in the Community's case-law. The Commission did not                   Article 119 of the EC Treaty or 'payment' within the
     accept the justification that the guarantee was                       meaning of Article 11 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 92/85/
     emergency aid basing its opinion on serious and                       EEC (') for work performed in the year in which the
     blatant errors of fact and of law, and by failing to                  bonus is awarded even where it is given by the
     adduce any evidence as to whether the common                          employer mainly or exclusively as an incentive for
     interest was adversely affected, did not fully exclude                future work and/or loyalty to the firm . Is it to be
     the application of the exemptions under Article 92 ( 3 )              regarded as in the nature of pay or payment at least
     ( c ).                                                                where the employer has not announced prior to the
                                                                           beginning of the year of the award that at Chistmas in
                                                                           the following year he intends to relate it exclusively to
                                                                           the performance of future work and so to exclude
— Breach of the principle of proportionality: inasmuch as                  from the payment employees whose employment
     withdrawal of the aid would produce immediate and,                    relationship at the time of payment and thereafter are
     as regards EPAC, irreversible damage, it is hard to see               in abeyance ?
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/ 16                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 11 . 97
2 . Is there a breach of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Article 11 ( 2 ) of Directive 92/85/EEC and clause 2 ( 6 )
      of the Annex to Directive 96/34/EC (2) ( which is yet to
      be transposed ) if an employer wholly excludes women                — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to refund :
      who are on parenting leave (Erziehungsurlaub) at the
      time of payment of the Christmas bonus from receipt                      — Lit 455 200 000, together with Lit 650 885 399 by
      of the bonus and does not take into account work
                                                                                way of interest, in respect of the financing of
      performed and periods completed for the protection                           contract 147,
      of mothers (in which they were prohibited from
      working)?
                                                                               — Lit 158 400 000, together with Lit 243 672 000 by
                                                                                way of interest, in respect of the financing of
                                                                                contract 149 ,
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative :
                                                                               that is to say, the total §um of Lit 1 508 157 399
                                                                               together with further interest as from 31 August 1997
      Is there a breach of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                       until the day on which repayment is fully effected,
      Article 11 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 92/85/EEC and clause 2               following rescission of the two contracts referred to
       ( 6 ) of the Annex to Directive 96/34/EC if, when                       above,
      awarding a Christmas bonus to a woman who is on
      parenting leave, an employer takes into account the
      following periods by way of pro rata reduction:                     — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the
                                                                               Commission Lit 50 000 000 by way of damages or
                                                                               such sum as may be considered due compensation for
      — periods of parenting leave;                                            the damage suffered by reason of its faillure to
                                                                               perform its obligations,
      — periods for the protection of mothers ( in which she              — order the Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the
             was prohibited from working)?                                     costs .
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Arbeitsgericht requests the Court of Justice to give a
ruling, in the context of the questions referred by it, also
on the scope of clause 2 ( 6 ) of the Annex to Directive 96/              The object of this action, which is based on an arbitration
34/EC .                                                                   clause, is to recover financial assistance which the
                                                                          Commission granted the defendant so that it could
                                                                          construct ( a ) a 225 kW combined wind/diesel energy
(') OJ L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992, p. 1 .                                     system with optimum power distribution ( contract No WE/
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 19 . 6 . 1996 , p. 4 .
                                                                          147-85 ) and ( b ) a hydroelectric generator plant combined
                                                                          with a wind/diesel energy system ( contract No HY/149
                                                                          85 ). The Commission decided to withdraw from the
                                                                          contracts, drawn up between the parties in accordance
                                                                          with Italian law, on account of the defendant's failure to
                                                                          perform its obligations thereunder.
Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Comune di
                          Montorio al Vomano
                             ( Case C-334/97)
                                                                          Reference for preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Ant
                               ( 97/C 357/28 )                            werpen by judgment of that court of 17 September 1997
                                                                          in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Wim
                                                                                Westenborg
                                                                                Case C-335 /97 )
An action against the Comune di Montorio al Vomano
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                            ( 97/C 357/29
Communities on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Paolo
Stancanelli of its Legal Service, assisted by Alberto Dal                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ferro, Avvocato, acting as Agents, with an address for                    European Communities by judgment of the Arbeidshof
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 (Higher Labour Court), Antwerp, of 17 September 1997,
Cruz, Wagner Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi .                              received at the Court Registry on 26 September 1997, for


title: Case C-420/08: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Yasar Erdil v Land Berlin
   (Case C-420/08) (1)

   2012/C 109/14
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


Important legal notice

|

E1998P0002

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Hérasdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court) by decision of that court of 17 April 1998 in the case of Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtök verslunarinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) v. the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaversnefnd) (Case E-2/98)

Official Journal C 268 , 27/08/1998 P. 0010 - 0010

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court) by decision of that court of 17 April 1998 in the case of Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtök verslunarinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) v. the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaver ssnefnd) (Case E-2/98) (98/C 268/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 17 April 1998 of Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1998, for an advisory opinion in the case of Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtök verslunarinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) v. the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaver ssnefnd), on the following questions:1(a) Does Council Directive 89/105/EEC, in particular Articles 2 and 3, apply to circumstances where a competent authority, empowered to approve the maximum prices of pharmaceuticals, decides, on its own motion, to decrease by 2,65 % the wholesale prices of all prescribed pharmaceuticals which are subject to provisions regarding marketing authorisation following the approval by a competent authority of a certain price, and which are subject to provisions regarding authority to increase prices, following the approval thereof by a competent authority, and which cost more than ISK 3 000, for the purpose of lowering the prices of pharmaceuticals to the public in accordance with prices in neighbouring countries and to reduce State expenditure on pharmaceuticals?(b) Is such a unilateral decision by a competent authority in conformity with Directive 89/105/EEC?(c) Does it affect the answer to the question if it is possible to apply for price increases for particular products despite the general decision to decrease wholesale prices?2(a) Is Article 2(2) of Directive 89/105/EEC to be interpreted to the effect that a unilateral decision by a competent authority, such as the one referred to in question 1, amounts to a rejection by the authority for marketing of a pharmaceutical product at a particular price?(b) If so, and if it is possible to apply for a price increase for particular products despite the general decision to decrease wholesale prices, does this affect the requirements for the reasoning by the competent authority, the information regarding legal measures available to the wholesaler and the time limits


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Service-station agreements — Duration — Significant contribution made by one supplier's contracts to the closing-off of the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same supplier)

text:
21.4.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 118/3
Aduaneiro do Porto, (Customs Court, Oporto) Portugal, for a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between José Teodoro de Andrade and Director da
Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Publico — on the                                        (Sixth Chamber)
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 6, 53 and                                        of 7 December 2000
243 thereof, and of the Community rules relating to value
added tax, — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puisso-             in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
chet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fen-              the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi
nelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                                    Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (1)
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Ser-
                                                                            vice-station agreements — Duration — Significant contri-
                                                                            bution made by one supplier’s contracts to the closing-off of
1.    Article 53 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                  the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same
      12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                              supplier)
      does not preclude the automatic application, without prior
      notification, of a procedure such as that established by
      Portuguese legislation, which provides for goods to be put up                                    (2001/C 118/05)
      for sale where the statutory time-limits for making a declaration
      for release for free circulation or an application for another
      customs-approved treatment or use for the goods have expired.                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2.    Use of a procedure providing either for such goods to be put up                           in the European Court Reports)
      for sale or for an ad valorem surcharge to be levied in order to
      regularise the situation of the goods is not in itself contrary to
      the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to     In Case C-214/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      determine whether the surcharge applied in the present case           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen
      complies with that principle.                                         Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, for a prelimi-
                                                                            nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                            between Neste Markkinointi Oy and Yötuuli Ky and Others —
                                                                            on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
3.    Article 6(3) and Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 do              Article 81(1) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
      not preclude use of a procedure, such as that at issue in the         C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
      main proceedings, which does not provide for interested parties       ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
      to receive prior notification.                                        N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
                                                                            2000, in which it has ruled:
4.    A surcharge intended to penalise a failure to comply with             The prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
      customs formalities cannot be subject to value added tax.             Article 81(1) EC) does not apply to an exclusive purchasing
                                                                            agreement entered into by a motor-fuels supplier which the retailer
                                                                            may terminate upon one year’s notice at any time where all
                                                                            that supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, whether considered
                                                                            separately or as a whole, taken together with the network of similar
                                                                            agreements made by the totality of suppliers, have an appreciable
                                                                            effect on the closing-off of the market but where the agreements of
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                   the same kind as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings by
                                                                            reason of their duration represent only a very small part of the totality
                                                                            of one supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, of which the
                                                                            majority are fixed term contracts entered into for more than one year.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case C-54/09 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2008 in Case T-339/06 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/21

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2008 in Case T-339/06 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-54/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and M. Tassopoulou)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               allow the appeal;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               uphold the action in accordance with the form of order sought;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the appellant's costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The Hellenic Republic submits: (i) that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Articles 16(1) and (2) and 17 of Regulation No 1227/2000 in finding that the time-limit laid down in Article 16(1) is binding, when it is in fact indicative — as is apparent from the interpretation of Article 16(2) and 17 of the regulation; (ii) that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 10 of the Treaty and general principles of law because the Commission, in agreeing that it was aware of the corrected data 23 days prior to adoption of the contested decision but did not take them into account, and that it accepts data which are submitted belatedly by other Member States while refusing to do the same in Greece's case, infringes the principles of cooperation in good faith, sound administration and equal treatment; and (iii) that the judgment of the Court of First Instance under appeal contains contradictory reasoning given that the recognition of the binding nature of the time-limit conflicts with the recognition and admission that the Commission accepts information submitted after expiry of the time-limit too.


title: Case C-73/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Nicolas Bressol, Anthony Wolf, Cédric Helie, Valérie Jabot, Claude Keusterickx, Denis Wilmet, Charlène Meurou, David Bacquart, Ayhar Gabriel Arslan, Yves Busegnies, Serge Clement, Sabine Gelaes, Etienne Dubuisson, Caroline Kinet, Dominique Peeters, Robert Lontie, Yannick Homerin, Isabelle Pochet, Walid Salem, Karin Van Loon, Olivier Leduc, Annick Van Wallendael, Dorothée Van Eecke, Olivier Ducruet, Céline Hinck, Nicole Arpigny, Eric De Gunsch, Thibaut De Mesmaeker, Mikel Ezquer, Constantino Balestra, Philippe Delince, Madeleine Merche, Jean-Pierre Saliez, Véronique de Mahieu, Muriel Alard, Danielle Collard, Pierre Castelein, Dominique De Crits, André Antoine, Christine Antierens, Brigitte Debert, Véronique Leloux, Patrick Parmentier, M. Simon, Céline Chaverot, Marine Guiet, Floriane Poirson, Laura Soumagne, Elodie Hamon, Benjamin Lombardet, Julie Mingant, Anne Simon, Anaïs Serrate, Sandrine Jadaud, Patricia Barbier, Laurence Coulon, Renée Hollestelle, Jacqueline Ghion, Pascale Schmitz, Sophie Thirion, Céline Vandeuren, Isabelle Compagnion v Gouvernement de la Communauté française (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(1) — Freedom to reside — Principle of non-discrimination — Access to higher education — Nationals of a Member State moving to another Member State in order to pursue studies there — Restriction on enrolment by non-resident students for university courses in the public health field — Justification — Proportionality — Risk to the quality of education in medical and paramedical matters — Risk of shortage of graduates in the public health sectors)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Nicolas Bressol, Anthony Wolf, Cédric Helie, Valérie Jabot, Claude Keusterickx, Denis Wilmet, Charlène Meurou, David Bacquart, Ayhar Gabriel Arslan, Yves Busegnies, Serge Clement, Sabine Gelaes, Etienne Dubuisson, Caroline Kinet, Dominique Peeters, Robert Lontie, Yannick Homerin, Isabelle Pochet, Walid Salem, Karin Van Loon, Olivier Leduc, Annick Van Wallendael, Dorothée Van Eecke, Olivier Ducruet, Céline Hinck, Nicole Arpigny, Eric De Gunsch, Thibaut De Mesmaeker, Mikel Ezquer, Constantino Balestra, Philippe Delince, Madeleine Merche, Jean-Pierre Saliez, Véronique de Mahieu, Muriel Alard, Danielle Collard, Pierre Castelein, Dominique De Crits, André Antoine, Christine Antierens, Brigitte Debert, Véronique Leloux, Patrick Parmentier, M. Simon, Céline Chaverot, Marine Guiet, Floriane Poirson, Laura Soumagne, Elodie Hamon, Benjamin Lombardet, Julie Mingant, Anne Simon, Anaïs Serrate, Sandrine Jadaud, Patricia Barbier, Laurence Coulon, Renée Hollestelle, Jacqueline Ghion, Pascale Schmitz, Sophie Thirion, Céline Vandeuren, Isabelle Compagnion v Gouvernement de la Communauté française
   (Case C-73/08) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18 and 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(1) - Freedom to reside - Principle of non-discrimination - Access to higher education - Nationals of a Member State moving to another Member State in order to pursue studies there - Restriction on enrolment by non-resident students for university courses in the public health field - Justification - Proportionality - Risk to the quality of education in medical and paramedical matters - Risk of shortage of graduates in the public health sectors)
   2010/C 148/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nicolas Bressol, Anthony Wolf, Cédric Helie, Valérie Jabot, Claude Keusterickx, Denis Wilmet, Charlène Meurou, David Bacquart, Ayhar Gabriel Arslan, Yves Busegnies, Serge Clement, Sabine Gelaes, Etienne Dubuisson, Caroline Kinet, Dominique Peeters, Robert Lontie, Yannick Homerin, Isabelle Pochet, Walid Salem, Karin Van Loon, Olivier Leduc, Annick Van Wallendael, Dorothée Van Eecke, Olivier Ducruet, Céline Hinck, Nicole Arpigny, Eric De Gunsch, Thibaut De Mesmaeker, Mikel Ezquer, Constantino Balestra, Philippe Delince, Madeleine Merche, Jean-Pierre Saliez, Véronique de Mahieu, Muriel Alard, Danielle Collard, Pierre Castelein, Dominique De Crits, André Antoine, Christine Antierens, Brigitte Debert, Véronique Leloux, Patrick Parmentier, M. Simon, Céline Chaverot, Marine Guiet, Floriane Poirson, Laura Soumagne, Elodie Hamon, Benjamin Lombardet, Julie Mingant, Anne Simon, Anaïs Serrate, Sandrine Jadaud, Patricia Barbier, Laurence Coulon, Renée Hollestelle, Jacqueline Ghion, Pascale Schmitz, Sophie Thirion, Céline Vandeuren, Isabelle Compagnion

      Defendant: Gouvernement de la Communauté française

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage), Belgium — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 12 and Article 18(1) EC, in conjunction with Articles 149 EC and 150 EC — Numerus clausus for enrolment by non-resident students in programmes of study in the area of public health offered by the universities and schools of higher education — Principle of non-discrimination — Justification and proportionality of restrictive measures — Maintenance of wide and democratic access to quality higher education for the population of the Member State concerned — Danger of a shortage of graduates in the occupational sectors concerned, constituting a danger to public health

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 18 and 21 TFEU preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the number of students not regarded as resident in Belgium who may enrol for the first time in medical and paramedical courses at higher education establishments, unless the referring court, having assessed all the relevant evidence submitted by the competent authorities, finds that that legislation is justified in the light of the objective of protection of public health.

               2.

               The competent authorities may not rely on Article 13(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, if the referring court holds that the decree of the French Community of 16 June 2006 which regulates the number of students in certain programmes in the first two years of undergraduate studies in higher education is not compatible with Articles 18 and 21 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 09.05.2008.


title: Case T-329/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — AJD Tuna v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/11

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — AJD Tuna v Commission
   (Case T-329/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)
   2012/C 109/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: AJD Tuna Ltd (St Paul's Bay, Malta) (represented by: J. Refalo, R. Mastroianni and M. Annoni, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               AJD Tuna Ltd is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden of 7 May 1997, in the case of A. J. van der Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Case C-181/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/ 15
                 — with respect to the competent institution of               1.    In view of the fact that the tassa di concessione
                     the Member State in which the second                           governative ( administrative charge ) for entering
                     activity is pursued ?                                          companies in the Register of Companies is unlawful in
                 — with respect to the person employing a                           so far as it infringes Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                     worker pursuing an activity in two                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising
                     Member States ?                                                of capital ( 1 ), is the application to claims for
                                                                                reimbursement of the three-year limitation period laid
             2 . If so, until when ?                                                down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                                                                compatible with Community law, or does it constitute
       ( b ) Does Form E 101 have retroactive effect in so far                      failure to apply Directive 69/335/EEC, having regard
             as the periods to which it relates have already                        to the fact that 'so long as a Directive has not been
             come to an end at the time when the form is
                                                                                properly transposed into national law, individuals are
             issued or produced ?                                                   unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights'?
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 .                                     2 . In the absence of a specific provision in Presidential
                                                                                Decree 331 /93 governing the limitation period for the
                                                                                reimbursement of undue payments, do the combined
                                                                                provisions of Articles 2934 and 2946 of the Civil
                                                                                Code apply, having regard to the fact that the payment
                                                                                in question is not due ( Article 2033 of the Civil
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                             Code )?
Nederlanden of 7 May 1997, in the case of A. J. van der
           Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien                    3 . Independently of Questions 1 and 2, do the time limits
                             ( Case C-181/97)                                       laid down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                 ( 97/C 212/25 )
                                                                                and Article 2946 of the Civil Code, respectively, start
                                                                                to run from the date of payment or, having regard to
                                                                                the principle referred to above that ' so long as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive has not been properly transposed into
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                    national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the
 der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                             full extent of their rights', from the date of publication
 7 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 9 May                                 of Presidential Decree 331 /93 in the Gazzetta Ufficiale
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. J. van der                         della Repubblica Italiana ?
 Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien on the
 following question:                                                           (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412.
 In the light of Articles 132 ( 1 ) and 227 of the EC Treaty,
 is Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the sixth Directive to be interpreted
 as meaning that the importation into the Netherlands of a
 ship which was previously in free circulation in the
 Netherlands Antilles is to be regarded as the entry into the
 Community of a product which does not fulfil the                             Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
 conditions of Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty ?                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                                                                                Case C-184/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/27)
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
  Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
  16 November           1996 in the case of Società Palazzo                    Communities on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
  Piacentini Srl against Amministrazione Finanziaria dello                     European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                        Stato
                                                                               Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                               ( Case C-l 82/97)                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                   ( 97/C 212/26 )
                                                                               of the Commission's Legal Service, C 254 Wagner Centre,
                                                                               Kirchberg.
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
  European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District
   Court ), Terza Sezione Civile (Third Civil Division),
   Brescia , of 16 November 1996 , received at the Court                        1 . declare that, by failing to establish programmes, in
   Registry on 12 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                           accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/
   case of Societa Piacentini Sri against Amministrazione                             EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
   dello Stato ( State Finance Administration ) on the                                dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
   following questions :                                                              environment of the Community ( 1 ), with quality


title: Case T-7/04: Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di Lucia Laudato & C. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
6.3.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/35
Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano against                   Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di
       the Commission of the European Communities                         Lucia Laudato & C. against the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                               in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-5/04)
                                                                                (Case T-7/04)
                         (2004/C 59/55)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/56)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano,                    An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Lucas, lawyer.                                                            European Communities on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di
                                                                          Lucia Laudato & C., represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer. The
                                                                          other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Liminana y Botella S.L.
—     annul the decision of the selection board in Competition
      COM/PA/02 determining the applicant’s results in the
      pre-selection tests;                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the list of successful candidates in Subject Area             —     annul the contested decision and/or vary it by rejecting
      No 3 of the competition and any decision adopted on                       the opposition by Liminana y Botella S.L., and by granting
      that basis;                                                               the application for registration of the Community trade
                                                                                mark submitted by the applicant;
—     order the Commission to pay to him compensation for
      non-material damage to him in a sum to be fixed by the              —     order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings.
      Court;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Party seeking the regis-      The applicant
                                                                          tration of the Com-
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, who lodged his candidature for Competition
COM/PA/02 for promotion from category B to category A,
                                                                          Relevant      Community       Figurative mark ‘Limoncello della
choosing the subject area ‘Human Resources Management/
                                                                          mark:                         Costiera Amalfitana-Shaker’ —
Administrative Organisation and Coordination’, seeks firstly
                                                                                Registration application No
the annulment of the selection board’s decision determining
                                                                                1267434 for products in Class-
his results in the pre-selection test and on that basis refusing
                                                                                es 29, 32 and 33 (jellies, preserves,
to admit him to the oral test.
                                                                                jams and liqueurs), subsequently
                                                                                limited to Classes 29 and 33.
In support of his claims the applicant pleads a breach of the
principles of good administration, of the duty to have regard             Owner of the mark or          Liminana y Botella S.L.
for the interests of officials, and of the principles of equal            distinctive sign asserted
treatment of candidates throughout the competition and                    in the opposition pro-
of objectivity when choosing between them. He claims,                     ceedings:
furthermore, that there was a manifest error of assessment in
that the sixth multiple choice question in the Italian version of         Mark or distinctive sign      Spanish word mark ‘limonchelo’,
the verbal and numerical test contained differences, caused by            asserted in the oppo-         for products in Class 33.
translation errors, from the English and French versions.                 sition proceedings:
Consequently the applicant, who had opted for the Italian
version, logically chose an answer considered incorrect and               Opposition      Division’s    Opposition upheld and appli-
did not choose that considered correct, unlike candidates who             decision:                     cation for registration rejected,
had opted for the other two language versions.                                                          limited to Class 33.
                                                                          Appeal Board’s decision:      Appeal dismissed.
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Grounds of the appeal:          Wrong application of Article               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                94 (likelihood of confusion), fail-
                                ure to state reasons and misuse            Applicants for the Com-       Friedrich Grimm and Engelbert
                                of powers by manifest error of             munity trade mark:            Rolli
                                assessment and inconsistency
                                with the Examiner’s decision of            Community trade mark          Community trade mark appli-
                                23 November 1999 regarding                 sought:                       cation No 847640 for word mark
                                partial rejection of the registration                                    SNIKE in relation to certain goods
                                of the mark concerned.                                                   in classes 12, 25 and 41 (Vehicles,
                                                                                clothing, footwear, headgear, edu-
                                                                                cation, entertainment,...)
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant, Muswellbrook Ltd.
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook                           Mark or sign cited in         The national figurative mark No
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                        opposition:                   88222 for certain goods in
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                     class 25 (Stockings, socks, shirts,
                                                                                gloves, coats, footwear, sporting
                           (Case T-8/04)                                                                 footwear, ...)
                          (2004/C 59/57)                                   Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of       Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:         Appeal:
                              English)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                941 (1)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited, Dublin, Ireland,                       Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer. Friedrich Grimm
and Engelbert Rolli were also party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the decision which was issued on 5 November
      2003 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, which                     Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus
      dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of             against the Commission of the European Communities
      29 April 2002 in opposition procedure No B 1181/
      2002, which dismissed the opposition that was lodged
      against community trade mark application No 847640                                            (Case T-10/04)
      for the registration of the word SNIKE in relation to all
      the products of class 25 covered by the application, does
      not comply with the EC Regulations on Community                                               (2004/C 59/58)
      Trade Marks, No 40/94, and that the said decision be set
      aside;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     declare that there is a risk of confusion between the
      community trade mark application with No 847640 for
      the word SNIKE in class 25 and Spanish trade mark
      No 88222, consisting of the word NIKE with device,                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      which protects identical products that also fall under               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      class 25;                                                            European Communities on 5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite
                                                                           Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébas-
—     order the respondent and, if applicable, the intervening             tien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
      party to pay the costs of these proceedings.                         Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


16.2.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 44/29
—     In the alternative, annul the present procedure and order                Removal from the Register of Case T-102/99 (1)
      a fresh procedure;
                                                                                (2002/C 44/50)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          By order of 9 November 2001, the President of the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The applicant contests the decision of the selection board for           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
General Competition COM/B/1/0, organised by the Com-                     Case T-102/99: L v Commission of the European Communi-
mission with a view to constituting a reserve list of assistants         ties.
at Grade B 5/B 4 in the field of customs (1), not to mark the
tests sat by the applicant on 6 July 2001 on the ground that             (1) OJ C 188, 3.7.99.
he did not have sufficient professional experience as required
by Point III.B.2 of the competition notice.
The applicant claims that he has the professional experience
required by the competition notice, as attested when he                         Removal from the Register of Case T-68/01 (1)
submitted his application, and that the contested decision does
not comply with the requirement to give reasons and is                                           (2002/C 44/51)
contrary to the principle of equality of treatment. The applicant
further argues that inviting the candidates to tests and to then                           (Language of the case: German)
check whether the conditions laid down for the competition
have been met amounts to an inadequate procedure which
runs counter to the principles of sound administration and of
legal certainty and deprives those candidates who have been              By order of 5 November 2001, the President of the Second
excluded of their rights of defence.                                     Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the Register of Case T-68/01: Huber + Suhner MRS GmbH v
(1) OJ C 24A, p. 22.                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212, 28.7.01.


title: Case T-217/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2014  — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission (Interim proceedings — State aid — Airport infrastructure — Public finance granted by the local authorities to a regional airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/10

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2014 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
   (Case T-217/14 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - State aid - Airport infrastructure - Public finance granted by the local authorities to a regional airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   2014/C 361/12
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, S. Noë and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend operation of Commission Decision C(2014) 759 final of 11 February 2014 relating to measure S.A,35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N) — Poland — Conversion of the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-502/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of two devices of crossing sickles) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two devices of crossing sickles — Earlier national and international figurative marks representing two devices of ribbons — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of two devices of crossing sickles)
   (Case T-502/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two devices of crossing sickles - Earlier national and international figurative marks representing two devices of ribbons - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters and V. Wellens, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2011 (Case R 1904/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC and Mundipharma AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-147/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 2001 in the case of (1) Weber's Wine World HandelsgesmbH, (2) Ernestine Rathgeber, (3) Karl Schlosser, (4) Beta-Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien

text:
16.6.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 173/27
So far as concerns those undertakings in respect of which the           preclude the application of the provision, created by the
CIPI has made a finding of economic crisis within the meaning           amendment to the Wiener Abgabenordnung (Vienna Tax
of Law No 675/77, it must be observed that Article 4a(3) of             Code, WAO) of 2 March 2000, LGBI. No 9/2000, and
Directive 77/187 provides, so far as undertakings in grave              applicable also to tax liabilities which arose before promulgation of
economic crisis are concerned, that Member States may apply             that amendment, in Paragraph 185(3) of the WAO, under which
paragraph 2(b) to any transfers where the transferor is in a            there is no claim to repayment where the economic burden of
situation of serious economic crisis, as defined by national law,       the duty was borne by a person other than the taxable person?
provided that the situation is declared by a competent public
authority and open to judicial supervision, on condition that
such provisions already exist in national law by 17 July 1998.          (1) OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 1.
According to a Joint Declaration of the Commission and the
Council on the adoption of Directive 98/50, only Italy had
legislation of that type. Furthermore, in that event also the
principle that workers’ rights should be protected remains
untouched. That principle is not observed by the contested
Italian legislation, which provides sic et simpliciter for the
disapplication of Directive 77/187.
                                                                        Action brought on 4 April 2001 by the Hellenic Republic
(1) OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26.                                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-148/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/46)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 4 April 2001 by the Hellenic Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, legal Adviser in the State
gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 2001 in                  Legal Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that
the case of (1) Weber’s Wine World HandelsgesmbH,                       Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(2) Ernestine Rathgeber, (3) Karl Schlosser, (4) Beta-                  Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
  Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-147/01)
                                                                        —     grant the application;
                         (2001/C 173/45)
                                                                        —     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
                                                                              C(2001) 198 Final of 1 March 2001 excluding from
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-                   the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 2001, which                 European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
was received at the Court Registry on 2 April 2001, for a                     (EAGGF).
preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Weber’s Wine World
HandelsgesmbH, (2) Ernestine Rathgeber, (3) Karl Schlosser,
(4) Beta-Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien                 Pleas in law and main arguments
on the following question:
                                                                        The Hellenic Republic contends that a financial correction has
Do Article 10 EC (formerly Article 5 of the EC Treaty) and              been imposed upon it unlawfully so far as concerns the
point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of           amount of the interest due for late payment of the additional
Justice of the European Communities of 9 March 2000 in Case             levy in the milk and milk products sector.
C-437/97 Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v Abgaben-
berufungskommission Wien and Wein & Co. HandelsgesmbH,
formerly Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Oberöster-                The Hellenic Republic contends that the proposed financial
reichische Landesregierung [2000] ECR I-1157, according to              correction should be annulled because the applicable legal
which Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC (1) may not be relied         provisions have been misinterpreted and the statement of
on in support of claims relating to a tax such as the duty on           reasons is insufficient.
alcoholic beverages paid or chargeable prior to the date of that
judgment, except by claimants who before that date initiated
legal proceedings or raised an equivalent administrative claim,