title: Case F-47/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/35

         Action brought on 24 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-47/15)
   (2015/C 190/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to uphold the application for the retroactive grant of the dependent child allowance in respect of the two children of the applicant’s spouse, who live at her home every second week, with effect from the date of their marriage and payment of compensation.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 9 December 2014, notified on 16 December 2014, but only in so far as the Appointing Authority, after having upheld the claim in this regard and correctly decided to annul the decision of 19 June 2014 and therefore to grant her the dependent child allowance and the derived allowances, decided none the less not to grant the allowances in question retroactively from the date of her marriage, awarding the right to the dependent child allowance and the derived allowances only with effect from 1 March 2014, namely the first day of the month during which the applicant applied for review;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant, as compensation and under the unlimited jurisdiction of the Tribunal, to pay the sum of EUR 33  375,99, with the right reserved to increase that sum during the proceedings, in compensation for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, together with default interest at the statutory rate as applied in Belgium for the years in question from 1 September 2011 until the date of payment in full;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.


C 134/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                     Removal from the register of Case C-103/99 (1)
istrative d’Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by
judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of
Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v                                   (2001/C 134/22)
                           GEMO SA
                                                                     By order of 7 November 2000 the President of the Court of
                        (Case C-126/01)                              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-103/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 134/19)                               ruling from Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): P. Moskof
                                                                     AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Lyon (Administrative Court of Appeal,             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Lyons) (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de l’Économie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA on the following
question:
‘Does the charge on meat purchases provided for under
Article 302 bis ZD of the Code Général des Impôts form part
of an arrangement which may be regarded as aid within the
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957                        Removal from the register of Case C-84/99 (1)
establishing the European Community (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC)?’                                                                            (2001/C 134/23)
                                                                     By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-84/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Amsterdamsche
                                                                     Football Club ‘AJAX’ and Langenberg Participaties BV, also
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/00 (1)                 trading under the name ‘Fan Promotions’ v S.C. Reule and
                                                                     Others.
                       (2001/C 134/20)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-91/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-163/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-90/00 (1)                                        (2001/C 134/24)
                       (2001/C 134/21)                               By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-163/00: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
from the register of Case C-90/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case C-264/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 19 June 2008 — Belgische Staat v Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 19 June 2008 — Belgische Staat v Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV
   (Case C-264/08)
   (2008/C 247/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Belgische Staat

      Respondent: Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the entry in the accounts referred to in Article 221 of the Community Customs Code (1) the same as the entry in the accounts referred to in Article 217, which consists in the amount of duty being entered by the customs authorities in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is the rule laid down in Article 217 of the Community Customs Code that the amount of duty is to be ‘entered … in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium’ to be construed? Are certain technical or formal minimum requirements attached thereto, or does Article 217 leave the establishment of more detailed rules on the practice of entering the amount of duty in the accounts entirely to the Member States, without imposing any minimum requirements? Should that entry in the accounts be distinguished from the entry of the amount of duty in the accounts for own resources as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 1150/2000 (2) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources?

               3.

               Should Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code be understood to mean that a notification of the amount of duty by the customs authorities to the debtor in accordance with appropriate procedures can be regarded as the communication of the amount of duty by the customs authorities as referred to in Article 221(1) only if the amount of duty was entered in the accounts before being brought to the debtor's attention? In addition, what is meant by the words ‘in accordance with appropriate procedures’ used in Article 221(1)?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is affirmative, can an assumption be made to the advantage of the State that the amount of duty was entered in the accounts before being communicated to the debtor? Can the national court also proceed on the assumption that the declaration by the customs authorities that the amount of duty was entered in the accounts before being communicated to the debtor is true, or should those authorities submit written evidence of the entry of the amount of duty in the accounts to the national court as a matter of course?

               5.

               Must the entry of the amount of duty in the accounts required by Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code precede its communication to the debtor on pain of the annulment or expiry of the right to proceed to recovery or post-clearance recovery of the customs debt? In other words, should Article 221(1) be understood to mean that, if the amount of duty is brought to the attention of the debtor by the customs authorities in accordance with appropriate procedures, but without the amount of duty having been entered in the accounts by the customs authorities prior to that notification, the amount of duty cannot be recovered, unless the customs authorities again bring the amount of duty to the debtor's attention in accordance with appropriate procedures after the amount of duty has been entered in the accounts and in so far as that occurs within the limitation period laid down in Article 221 of the Community Customs Code?

               6.

               If the fifth question is answered in the affirmative, what is the consequence of the payment by the debtor of the amount of duty communicated to him without its having been previously entered in the accounts? Should this be regarded as an undue payment which he may recover from the State?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1.


title: Case C-411/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/34

         Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-411/06)
   (2006/C 294/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, M. Huttunen, Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste;

               —

               declare that the effects of the annulled regulation are definitive pending the replacement of the regulation within a reasonable period of time by an act adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on the correct legal basis of Articles 175(1) and 133 EC and justified accordingly in the recitals;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that its choice of a double legal basis was decided according to the parameters established by the case-law of the Court of Justice which are the aim and the content of the act. It was based on the appreciation that the regulation includes, both as regards the aims pursued and its contents, two linked components, neither of which can be regarded as secondary or indirect as compared with the other, one falling within the scope of the common commercial policy and the other within that of protection of the environment.
   The Commission considers that by basing the regulation solely on article 175(1) EC and deleting article 133 EC as its second legal basis, the European Parliament and the Council have acted in infringement of the Treaty. In accordance with article 231(1) EC, the annulment of the Regulation constitutes the appropriate remedy for this infringement.

      (1)  OJ L 190, p.1


title: Case T-372/04: Action brought on 15 September 2004 by Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/45

         Action brought on 15 September 2004 by Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-372/04)
   (2004/C 300/88)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 September 2004 by the Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français, established in Paris, represented by Olivier Schmitt, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities No C (2004) 1361 final of 20 April 2004 concerning aid implemented by France in favour of Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF) in so far as the first sentence of Article 1 thereof categorises the aid benefiting CELF for handling small orders of French-language books, implemented by France between 1980 and 2001, as State aid within Article 87(1) EC;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay EUR 5 000.00 in respect of costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant's business is directly handling orders from abroad for books, brochures and all communications media and, more generally, carrying out any transactions for the purpose of furthering the promotion of French culture throughout the world. The applicant states that in carrying out that general-interest activity, it has benefited from various subsidies paid by the French State. The subsidy at issue in these proceedings is an operating subsidy granted to the applicant for the purpose of offsetting the extra costs involved in handling small orders from booksellers abroad.
   In support of its action, the applicant argues, first, that the statement of reasons in the contested decision is inadequate. Second, the applicant relies on infringements of Article 86(2) EC and Article 87(1) EC.
   The applicant submits that, as an undertaking operating a service of general economic interest, it was made responsible for performing clearly defined public-service obligations. Thus, the sums paid by the State are excluded from the State aid at which Article 87(1) EC is targeted.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2003 in Case T-46/02: Finchimica SpA and I.PI.CI — Industria Prodotti Chimici SpA v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/35
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament
                                                                            (Agents, C. Pennera and M. Moore) and Council of the
                           of 6 May 2003                                    European Union (Agents: M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-
                                                                            Nielsen), supported by Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                            nities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for
in Case T-46/02: Finchimica SpA and I.PI.CI — Industria
                                                                            partial annulment of Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the
Prodotti Chimici SpA v European Parliament and Council
                                                                            European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
                     of the European Union (1)
                                                                            2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of
                                                                            water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001
(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —                          L 331, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                           Inadmissibility)                                 composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 May 2003,
                          (2003/C 184/78)                                   the operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-46/02, Finchimica SpA, established in Manerbio                    2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs
(Italy), I.PI.CI — Industria Prodotti Chimici SpA, established in                 incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
Novate Milanese (Italy), represented by K. Van Maldegem and
C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
and M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:                    3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.
M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of                 (1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on , the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
      incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.                                                         of 6 May 2003
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.                                                 in Case T-70/02: Griffin (Europe) Headquaters NV v
                                                                            European Parliament and Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
                                                                            (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 6 May 2003                                                              (2003/C 184/80)
in Case T-57/02: Makhteshim Agan Holding BV v
European Parliament and Council of the European                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                              Union (1)
(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                           Inadmissibility)                                 In Case T-70/02, Griffin (Europe) Headquarters NV, established
                                                                            in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by K. Van Maldegem and
                          (2003/C 184/79)                                   C. Mereu, lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
                                                                            and M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                            M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
                                                                            Jordana and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of
                                                                            Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
In Case T-57/02, Makhteshim Agan Holding BV, established in                 the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by P. Logelain, K. Van                 priority substances in the field of water policy and amending


title: Case T-269/00: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Sagar v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/15

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Sagar v Commission
   (Case T-269/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 86/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sagar Srl (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               Sagar Srl, in addition to bearing its own costs, is to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-159/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division) by judgment of that court of 18 April 2000 in the case of Sapod Audic v Eco Emballages

text:
C 176/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.6.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French                           the mandatory requirement related to the protection of the
Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic                        environment?
Division) by judgment of that court of 18 April 2000 in
         the case of Sapod Audic v Eco Emballages
                                                                        (1) laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the
                                                                            field of technical standards and regulations (OJ L 109, 26.4.1983,
                                                                            p. 8).
                                                                        (2) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
                        (Case C-159/00)                                 (3) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
                                                                            L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39).
                                                                        (4) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                        (2000/C 176/30)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Action brought on 28 April 2000 by the Commission of
European Communities by judgment of the French Cour de                             the European Communities against Ireland
Cassation (Court of Cassation) (Commercial, Financial and
Economic Division) of 18 April 2000, which was received at
the Court Registry on 28 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling                                      (Case C-160/00)
in the case of Sapod Audic v Eco Emballages. The French Cour
de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)
asks the Court of Justice to rule on the following questions:                                      (2000/C 176/31)
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 28 April 2000 by the
1. Must Article 1 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                    Commission of the European Communities, represented by
    28 March 1983 (1), as drafted both before and after amend-          Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official seconded
    ment by Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament               to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrangement for
    and the Council of 23 March 1994 (2) materially amending            the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents, with an
    Directive 83/189/EEC for the second time, be interpreted            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    as meaning that the provisions of Decree No 92-377 of               Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
    1 April 1992 constitute a technical regulation, in particular       Commission, Centre Wagner.
    inasmuch as they permit a producer not to use Eco
    Emballages’ approved system if the producer itself arranges
    for the elimination of its packaging waste?                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
2. Must Article 10 of Directive 83/189, both before and after
    amendment by Directive 94/10, and Article 3(2) of                        — Directive 96/24/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 amending
    Directive 75/442/EEC (3) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as                         Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound
    amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March                           feedingstuffs
    1991 (4) be interpreted as meaning that the French Govern-
    ment was required to notify the Commission of the                        — Directive 96/25/EC (2) of 29 April 1996 on the circu-
    provisions of the decree of 1 April 1992 and, if it was so                    lation of feed materials, amending Directives
    required, that an individual may rely on the failure to notify                70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC
    in order to have the provisions declared unenforceable?                       and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC
                                                                             — Directive 98/67/EC (3) of 7 September 1998 amending
                                                                                Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/EEC, 91/357/EEC and
3. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC),                          Council Directive 96/25/EC and repealing Directive
    properly construed, preclude rules such as those contained                    92/87/EEC;
    in Decree 92-377 requiring an importer of products from
    other Member States intended for household use to use
    packaging meeting certain technical requirements and to                  and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
    affix to that packaging a ‘logo’ proving that he has                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
    subscribed to an approved system for the recovery of                     Directives, and
    packaging waste, inasmuch as those rules, which are
    applicable to all products alike, are not proportionate to          — order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-452/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 16 October 2008 — Emilia Flores Fanega v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) and Bolumburu S.A.

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 16 October 2008 — Emilia Flores Fanega v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) and Bolumburu S.A.
   (Case C-452/08)
   (2009/C 6/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emilia Flores Fanega

      Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) and Bolumburu S.A.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Clause 2(6) of Annex 1 to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 to be interpreted as meaning that observance of rights in the process of being acquired extends to a pension for life on the ground of a person's total and permanent incapacity to perform her usual work, arising during the period of a year's parental leave taken in the form of a reduction in the working day and pay, as a result of an occupational disease contracted in carrying out the work she was employed to perform for the undertaking that gave the parental leave and revealing itself during that leave period, having regard to the fact that Social Security covers that benefit in subrogation to the obligations of the undertaking, by reason of the relationship of compulsory insurance against the risks of accidents at work and occupational diseases?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that the guarantee of protection which it provides is infringed by a provision of domestic law that, with the object of fixing the amount of pension for total permanent invalidity on account of occupational disease, takes into consideration the pay received by the worker concerned and the contributions actually made on the basis of that pay in the 12 months before the operative event, during the greater part of which the worker made use of that leave with a reduction in her working day, pay and contributions, but does not provide any correcting factor making it possible to ensure that the object of that provision of Community law is achieved?

               3.

               At all events, and whatever the tenor of the answer to the foregoing questions, are Clauses 2(8) and 4(2) of Annex I to that directive to be interpreted as meaning that the obligations and measures that they prescribe are incompatible with the application of a rule of calculation such as that described?

               4.

               Irrespective of the replies to the foregoing questions, is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that it is contrary to the principle of equal treatment to apply a calculation formula such as that referred to, given that, according to the statistics, female workers form the overwhelming majority of workers availing themselves of the form of parental leave described?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, (OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4).


title: Case C-226/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work — Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) — Defective transposition)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-226/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/391/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work - Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) - Defective transposition)
   (2008/C 183/02)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-255/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof by Order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the case relating to the minor Anna Humer represented by her mother Andrea Sturmbauer-Machand

text:
C 265/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.9.1999
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:                       II.   If the answer to one of the questions under I is in the
                                                                              negative:
     Can it be concluded that these circumstances constitute ‘a
                                                                              a) Are advances on maintenance payments under the
     special situation’ which — if the other legislative conditions
                                                                                Unterhaltsvorschußgesetz referred to in Question I(a)
     are satisfied — may lead to repayment of the import duties
                                                                                social advantages within the meaning of Article 7(2) of
     under Article 239 of the Customs Code in conjunction
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (4) of the Council of
     with Article 905(1) of the regulation implementing the
                                                                                15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for work-
     Customs Code?
                                                                                ers within the Community?
                                                                              b) Does the fact that the child has to be resident in Austria
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992,                   in order to be awarded advances on maintenance
    p. 1.                                                                          payments constitute a prohibited limiting provision
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, OJ L 253 of                            under the second indent of Article 3(1) of Regulation
    11.10.1993, p. 1.
                                                                                (EEC, No 1612/68 in the light of the right to freedom
                                                                                of movement for workers enshrined in Article 48 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty?
                                                                              c) Do the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68 give rise
                                                                                to an entitlement, in the person of the child of a
                                                                                worker, to the award of advances on maintenance
                                                                                payments?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                       ( 1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
Gerichtshof by Order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the                ( 2) OJ L 230 of 22.8.1984, p. 6.
case relating to the minor Anna Humer represented by                     ( 3) OJ L 331 of 16.11.1989, p. 1.
           her mother Andrea Sturmbauer-Machand                          ( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                          (Case C-255/99)
                         (1999/C 265/03)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                         of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 29 March
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof,               1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
Vienna, of 23 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on               for the Home Department, ex parte: Julius Barkoci and
8 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case relating to the                                     Marcel Malik
minor Anna Humer, represented by her mother Andrea
Sturmbauer-Machand, on the following question:                                                      (Case C-257/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/04)
I. a) Do advances on maintenance payments to the minor
          children of working persons, or unemployed persons             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          drawing unemployment benefit under Austrian legis-             European Communities by an order of the High Court of
          lation, which are payable in respect of children under         Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional
          the Austrian federal law on the grant of advances on           Court of 29 March 1999, which was received at the Court
          maintenance (Unterhaltsvorschußgesetz 1985 [Law on             Registry on 9 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
          Advances on Maintenance Payments 1985], hereinafter            The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
          UVG — current version in BGBl p. 451) constitute               ment, ex parte: Julius Barkoci and Marcel Malik, on the
          family benefits for the purposes of Article 4(1)(h) of         following questions:
          Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
          1971 on the application of social security schemes to
          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to              Direct effect and interpretation of the Agreement (1)
          members of their families moving within the Com-
          munity, as amended and updated by Regulation (EEC)
          No 2001/83 (2) of 2 June 1983 and amended by                   1. Does Article 45 of the Agreement have direct effect
          Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 (3) of 30 Octo-                 within the national legal systems of Member States,
          ber 1989, and is Article 3 of the regulation, on equality           notwithstanding the provisions of Article 59 of the Agree-
          of treatment, therefore also applicable in such a case?             ment?
                                                                         2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, how is the proviso in
     b) Do Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation 1408/71 entitle a                 the penultimate sentence of Article 59(1) of the Agreement
          child of a marriage who is resident with his mother in              (and in particular the words ‘benefits accruing to any Party
          a Member State other than Austria and whose father is               under the terms of a specific provision of this Agreement’)
          resident in Austria and is working there, or unem-                  to be interpreted; and, more generally, to what extent may
          ployed and drawing unemployment benefit under                       a Member State apply its laws and regulations regarding
          Austrian legislation, to the award of an advance on                 entry, stay and establishment of natural persons to persons
          maintenance payments under the Unterhaltsvorschuß-                  invoking Article 45 of the Agreement, without violating
          gesetz referred to in paragraph (a) above?                          this proviso?


title: Case T-406/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014  — BG v Ombudsman (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty of removal from post without loss of entitlement to a retirement pension — Preliminary investigation pending before a national court when the decision ordering removal from the post was adopted — Equal treatment — Prohibition on dismissal during maternity leave)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014 — BG v Ombudsman
   (Case T-406/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Penalty of removal from post without loss of entitlement to a retirement pension - Preliminary investigation pending before a national court when the decision ordering removal from the post was adopted - Equal treatment - Prohibition on dismissal during maternity leave))
   2014/C 212/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: BG (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: J. Sant’Anna, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11 BG v Ombudsman, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders BG to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Cristiano Blanco (C-344/13), Pier Paolo Fabretti (C-367/13) v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Income from winnings from games of chance — Difference in taxation between winnings obtained abroad and those from national casinos)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Cristiano Blanco (C-344/13), Pier Paolo Fabretti (C-367/13) v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli
   (Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Income from winnings from games of chance - Difference in taxation between winnings obtained abroad and those from national casinos))
   (2014/C 439/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cristiano Blanco (C-344/13), Pier Paolo Fabretti (C-367/13)

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 52 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which subjects winnings from games of chance obtained in casinos in other Member States to income tax and exempts similar income from that tax if it is obtained from casinos in its national territory.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-38/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2014 — Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería v Samir Zaizoune
   (Case C-38/14)
   2014/C 93/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Gipuzkoa — Extranjería

      Other party: Samir Zaizoune

      Question referred

   In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, must Articles 4(2), 4(3) and 6(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation, such as the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and the case-law which interprets it, pursuant to which the illegal stay of a foreign national may be punishable just by a financial penalty, which, moreover, may not be imposed concurrently with the penalty of removal?

      (1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).


title: Case C-417/02: Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 19/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                     new securities issued when a company or investment
ichtshof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in                         fund is being set up or following the completion of an
the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.                    increase in capital or during a loan issue,
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberös-
                             terreich                                         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                        (Case C-414/02)                                       17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                              capital (1);
                         (2003/C 19/27)
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Administrative Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling            Pleas in law and main arguments
in the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberösterreich
(Regional Finance Directorate for Upper Austria) on the                 The taxes referred to in the forms of order sought are at
following questions:                                                    variance with Article 11 of the Directive in so far as they are
                                                                        imposed on the delivery to the subscriber and/or the issue of
Does Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechtsdurchführungsgesetz               new securities. In those cases, the derogation provided for in
(Act to implement customs law, under which an employer or               Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive, which allows Member States
undertaking incurs liability for a customs debt at the same             to charge duties on the transfer of securities, is not applicable
time as the employee or other person contracted by the                  because such a ‘transfer’ presupposes the existence of a
undertaking incurs liability for the debt, if that person has, in       previous owner of the securities in question.
the discharge of his employer’s or the undertaking’s affairs,
acted unlawfully with regard to customs obligations), widen
the meaning of the term ‘customs debtor’ in a manner that is            (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412.
contrary to Article 202(3) of the Customs Code and therefore
incompatible with Community law?
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                      Kingdom of Belgium                                Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities against the
                        (Case C-415/02)                                                          Hellenic Republic
                         (2003/C 19/28)
                                                                                (Case C-417/02)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                               (2003/C 19/29)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
the Court should:                                                       vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in its Legal
—     Rule that:                                                        Service.
      by imposing the ‘tax on stock-exchange transactions’ on
      applications made in Belgium for new securities issued
      when a company or investment fund is being set up or              The Commission claims that the Court should:
      following the completion of an increase in capital or
      during a loan issue;                                              (a)   declare that,
      by imposing the ’tax on the delivery of securities to the
      holder’ on the substantive issue to the holder of securities            —     by enacting and retaining in force Article 3(1)(c) and
      relating to Belgian or foreign public funds, in the case of                   (2) of Presidential Decree 107/93, and
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/17
      —     by accepting the systematic refusal by the Tekhniko          1.   Does retail trading constitute a service within the meaning
            Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE) (Technical Chamber of                  of Article 2 of the Directive?
            Greece), registration with which is an essential
            precondition in order to pursue the profession of                 If the answer to this question should be affirmative:
            architect in Greece, to register Community nationals
            holding non-Greek qualifications which should be             2.   To what extent must the content of such services by a
            recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of                  retailer be specifically stated in order to guarantee the
            10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of dip-                    certainty of the subject-matter of trade-mark protection
            lomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  that is required in order to
            qualifications in architecture, including measures
            to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
            establishment and freedom to provide services (1),                (a)   fulfil the function of the trade mark pursuant to
                                                                                Article 2 of the Directive, namely distinguishing the
            the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-                    goods or services of one undertaking from those of
            gations under Articles 6(2), 10 and 12 of that                          other undertakings, and
            directive;
(b)   order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           (b) define the scope of protection of such a trade mark
                                                                                in the event of a conflict?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          3.   To what extent is it necessary to define the scope of
                                                                              similarity (Article 4(1)(b) and Article 5(1)(b) of the
                                                                              Directive) between those services by a retailer and
The Commission alleges that the Hellenic Republic has failed
to transpose Directive 85/384 into national law correctly
inasmuch as the Greek legislation lays down: (i) a parallel                   (a)   the other services provided in connection with the
system for contesting diplomas, certificates and other evidence                     sale of goods, or
of formal qualifications beyond that provided for by the
directive (referral to the advisory committee for architecture);              (b) the goods sold by that particular retailer?
and (ii) an obligation on the other Member States beyond that
owed by them under Article 6(1) of the directive.
In addition, the Commission alleges that the defendant has
implemented the directive inappropriately by reason of incor-
rect administrative practice on the part of the Tekhniko
Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE). In its submission, the TEE either
does not examine in due time applications for entry on the
register or does not inform applicants, giving reasons, of the           Appeal brought on 21 November 2002 by Europe Chemi-
refusal to register them.                                                Con (Deutschland) GmbH against the judgment delivered
                                                                         on 12 September 2002 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended
( 1) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.                                         Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in case T-89/00 ( 1) between Euro-
                                                                         pe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union, supported by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespat-
entgericht by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in                                         (Case C-422/02 P)
the appeal matter of PRAKTIKER Bau- und Heimwerker-
                            märkte AG
                                                                                (2003/C 19/31)
                         (Case C-418/02)
                          (2003/C 19/30)
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 September
                                                                         2002 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                 T-89/00 between Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH
(Federal Patents Court) of 15 October 2002, received at the              and the Council of the European Union, supported by the
Court Registry on 20 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling             Commission of the European Communities, was brought
in the appeal matter of PRAKTIKER Bau- und Heimwerker-                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
märkte AG on the following questions on the interpretation of            21 November 2002 by Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland)
the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988               GmbH, established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade           K. Adamantopoulos, J. J. Gutiérrez Gisbert and J. Branton,
marks (OJ L 40 1989, p. 1):                                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T -397/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  19 January 2006  — MobilCom v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 January 2006 — MobilCom v Commission
   (Case T -397/04) (1)

   (2006/C 74/61)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-451/10: Order of the General Court of 21 July 2011 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission (Action for damages — Common agricultural policy — Standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market — Commission’s supervisory power — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action obviously lacking any basis in law)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/21

         Order of the General Court of 21 July 2011 — Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission
   (Case T-451/10) (1)

   (Action for damages - Common agricultural policy - Standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market - Commission’s supervisory power - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action obviously lacking any basis in law)
   2011/C 282/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH (Hörsching, Germany) (represented by: G. Lehner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Re:

   Action seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the lack of supervision, by the Commission, of the conditions for implementing standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as obviously lacking any basis in law.

               2.

               Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 29 April 2004 in Joined Case C-487/01 and C-7/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Gemeente Leusden (C-487/01), Holin Groep BV cs (C-7/02) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of input tax — Amendment of national legislation withdrawing the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable property — Adjustment of deductions — Application to current leases)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   29 April 2004
   in Joined Case C-487/01 and C-7/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Gemeente Leusden (C-487/01), Holin Groep BV cs (C-7/02) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Deduction of input tax - Amendment of national legislation withdrawing the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable property - Adjustment of deductions - Application to current leases)
   (2004/C 118/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Joined Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02: REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gemeente Leusden (C-487/01), Holin Groep BV cs (C-7/02) and Staatssecretaris van Financiën - on the interpretation of Articles 5(7)(a), 17 and 20(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty - the Court, composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1)

               Articles 17 and 20(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, interpreted in accordance with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty do not preclude the withdrawal by a Member State of the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable property which results in the adjustment of deductions made in respect of the immovable property acquired as capital goods which is let pursuant to Article 20 of the Sixth Directive 77/388.
               Where a Member State withdraws the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable property, it must take account of the legitimate expectation of its taxable persons when determining the arrangements for implementing the legislative amendment. The repeal of legislation from which a taxable person has derived an advantage in paying less tax, without there being any abuse, cannot however, as such, breach a legitimate expectation based on Community law.

               2)

               Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 concerns the application of goods by a taxable person for the purposes of his business and not a legislative amendment withdrawing the right to opt for taxation of a financial transaction which is generally exempt.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002

      OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 14 March 1996 in Case C-315/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld): Peter de Vos v. Stadt Bielefeld (Freedom of movement for persons - Military service - Social advantage)

text:
 No C 180/4            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
 Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Article 7 (1 ) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 1978 ,                Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
 p . 1 and — in its amended form — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Fifth         workers within the Community must be interpreted as
 Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of                  meaning that a worker who is a national of one Member
 Chamber ), J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                State and is employed in the territory of another Member
  ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,          State is not entitled to have payment of contributions
 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                      (employer's and employee's contributions) to the
 judgment on 14 March 1996, in which it rules :                         supplementary old-age and survivors ' pension scheme for
                                                                        workers in the public service continued, at the same level as
                                                                        would have been payable if the employment relationship
 Article 47 (1 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on              had not been suspended because of his call-up for military
 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and              service, where nationals of that State employed in the public
  Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of                   service are so entitled when performing military service in
 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of                      that State.
 Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
 and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
 where the domestic procedural rules so permit, proof of                (') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
 service of the judgment may be produced after the
 application has been made, in particular during the course of
 appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the party
 against whom enforcement is sought, provided that that
 party is given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy
 the judgment voluntarily and that the party seeking
 enforcement bears all costs unnecessarily incurred.
 (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 14 March 1996
                                                                        in Case C-238/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( ! )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/67/EEC —
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                               Assessment of risks to man and the environment posed by
                       of 14 March 1996
                                                                                dangerous substances)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/08 )
in Case C-3 15/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling
 from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld ): Peter de Vos v. Stadt
                             Bielefeld ( J )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 (Freedom of movement for persons — Military service —
                        Social advantage)
                          ( 96/C 180/07 )
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-238/95 : Commission of the European
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Communities ( Agents : Laura Pignatoro and Maria
                                                                       Condou-Durande ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Professor
                                                                       Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, avvocato
In Case C-3 1 5/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          dello Stato ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld                     to adopt and communicate the laws, regulations and
( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
pending before that court between Peter de Vos and Stadt               Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying
Bielefeld on the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation             down the principles for assessment of risks to man and the
( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                environment of substances notified in accordance with
freedom of movement for workers within the Community                   Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 227, 1993 , p. 9 ),
( OJ, English Special Edition 1968(11 ), p . 475 ) — the Court         the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of             that Directive and the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
the Chamber, G. Hirsch, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                   Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges; D.                    Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; Registrar, R.                   Almeida, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Grass, gave a judgment on 14 March 1996, the operative                 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
part of which is as follows :                                          judgment on 14 March 1996 in which it:


title: Case T-295/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2007 — Document Security Systems v ECB (Monetary Union — Issue of euro banknotes — Alleged use of a patented invention designed to prevent counterfeiting — Action for infringement of a European patent — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility — Action for damages)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2007 — Document Security Systems v ECB
   (Case T-295/05) (1)

   (Monetary Union - Issue of euro banknotes - Alleged use of a patented invention designed to prevent counterfeiting - Action for infringement of a European patent - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 269/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Document Security Systems, Inc. (Rochester, New York, United States) (represented by: L. Cohen, H. Sheraton, B. Uphoff, solicitors, and C. Stanbrook, QC)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Zilioli and P. Machado, agents, assisted by E. Garayar Gutiérrez and G. de Ulloa y Suelves, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for a declaration that the ECB infringed the applicant's rights conferred by a European patent and for compensation for the resulting loss and damage that the applicant claims to have suffered.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action for patent infringement is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The action for damages is dismissed.

               3.

               Document Security Systems, Inc. is ordered to pay its own costs and to pay those of the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-21/95)

text:
8 . 4 . 95          I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/15
Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995              ( Gabon), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar,
by SA Adia Interim, the head office of which is in Brussels,         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
represented by Vincent Thiry, of the Liege Bar, with an              Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom
Gilliams, 47 Grand Rue.                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          — annul the decision of the Commission of 4 May 1994
                                                                         refusing the applicant full reimbursement of his medical
— declare the application admissible and well-founded,                   expenses in accordance with Article 24 of Annex X to
                                                                         the Staff Regulations,
— annul the decisions taken,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay in full the difference between
                                                                         the expenditure actually incurred and payments from
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                         the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme,
     pay the applicant all the costs of the proceedings,
     including, in particular, travel and subsistence expenses       — declare that the General Provisions implementing the
     and the fees of the applicant's adviser.                             first and second paragraphs of Annex X to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations are unlawful,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant, a company incorporated under Belgian law
which has been engaged for nine years in contractual                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
relations with the Commission involving the placing of
temporary workers at the latter's disposal with a view to the        The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 24 of
performance by them of miscellaneous duties in the                   Annex X to the Staff Regulations. He points out that that
premises of the Commission, contests the Commission's                Article contains no mention of any restriction or ceiling on
decision, adopted in the context of the invitation to tender         reimbursement, regardless of the expenditure actually
issued in that field on 13 July 1994, to award the contract to       incurred, and that, as a result, as soon as an official becomes
other undertakings.                                                  eligible under Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, he is entitled to reimbursement of all expenses
It maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by the          not covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
absence of any express statement of reasons, to which
particular importance attaches in public contract matters by         The applicant also maintains that the General Provisions
virtue of Article 12 of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the          implementing the first and second paragraphs of Annex X to
coordination of procedures for the award of public service           the Staff Regulations are unlawful, inasmuch as they
contracts, which obliges the contracting authority to inform         provide for an 'excessiveness threshold' beyond which
any eliminated tenderer who so requests of the reasons for           medical expenses are not reimbursed. He considers that
rejection of his tender and of the name of the successful            limitation to be contrary to Article 24 of Annex X, which
tenderer.                                                            provides for cover in respect of the full difference between
                                                                     expenditure actually incurred and payments from the Joint
In the applicant's view, the contested decision breaches the          Sickness Insurance Scheme, and that, consequently, the
principles of equality and impartiality, inasmuch as the              General Provisions are unlawful .
 defendant institution failed to apply the criterion of the most
economically advantageous tender, in the light of the
conditions laid down in the specification.
                                                                     Action brought on 10 February 1995 by Efthimia Bitha,
                                                                     Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Marco                                                   (Case T-23/95 )
 Mazzocchi-Alemanni against the Commission of the                                             ( 95/C 87/34 )
                    European Communities
                        (Case T-21/95 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                          ( 95/C 87/33 )
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 10 February
                                                                      1995 by Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha,
An action against the Commission of the European                     residing in Thessaloniki ( Greece), represented by Jean-Noel
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Instance of the European Communities on 8 February 1995               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
by Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni, residing in Libreville                   Glesener .


title: Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Hermínia Fernanda dos Santos Morais Antas against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-316/97)

text:
30.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 166/15
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by                  According to the applicant, by the clearly indadequate and
International Procurement Services SA to the Commission            insufficient measures adopted, the Community breached
shall be FF 50 000.                                                the general principles of equal treatment, protection of
                                                                   legitimate expectations, legal certainty, proportionality
(1) OJ C 174 of 25.6.1994.                                         and non-discrimination.
                                                                   In the applicant's view, the adoption of such measures so
                                                                   completely unrelated to circumstances in Portugal is
                                                                   tantamount to a total failure to take account of the
                                                                   situation there. By not taking account of the specific
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Hermínia
                                                                   conditions affecting Portuguese customs officials, the
Fernanda dos Santos Morais Antas against Council of the
                                                                   Community did not act in such a way as to ensure that
     European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                   the damage caused to them was compensated, by way of
                         Communities
                                                                   more flexible rules, in the same way as that suffered by
                       (Case T-316/97)                             officials in northern European countries. In view of the
                        (98/C 166/39)                              conditions affecting their work as customs officials, which
                                                                   differ greatly from those affecting Portuguese conditions,
                                                                   the latter were able to take full advantage of some of the
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    measures put in place and thus gained a competitive
                                                                   advantage in the market by means of the Community
An action against the Council of the European Union and            funds from which they were able to benefit.
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 December 1997 by Hermínia                        Furthermore, by requiring the applicant to maintain its
Fernanda dos Santos Morais Antas, residing at Vila Nova            professional organization fully in force in order to carry
de Gaia, represented by Cristina Ferreira, Francisco               out its duties until 31 December 1992, the Community did
Espregueira Mendes, Teresa Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes              not enable the organization to be dismantled or retrained
Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.                                          timeously in view of the circumstances of the single
                                                                   market and, secondly, fed' its hopes that its inglorious
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        efforts would be rewarded'.
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of          Finally, the applicant states that, although the Single Act
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          constitutes an overriding Community interest, that does
    transitional and training measures necessary in the            not justify customs officials, including the applicant,
    sector to which the applicant belongs;                         having inflicted upon them damage which is undeniably
                                                                   abnormal and specific without providing for them
                                                                   transitional and training measures which might be
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and                 considered adequate.
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
    the date on which payment is actually made;
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  Action brought on 15 December 1997 by David Manuel
    costs.                                                         de Abreu and Others against Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                   (Cases T-317/97 to T-508/97)
From 31 December 1992, the applicant was employed as                                       (98/C 166/40)
a customs agent in the Oporto Customs Authority area.
She claims to have suffered abnormal, particular and
direct damage as a result of the progressive realization of                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
the internal market, established by the Single European
Act. The applicant points out that the causal factor of the
damage is not held to be, in the present action, the Single        An action against the Council of the European Union and
Act itself but the fact that the Community institutions did        the Commission of the European Communities was
not fulfil their obligation under the Single European Act,         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
namely the obligation to introduce the appropriate                 Communities on 15 December 1997 by David Manuel de
compensatory and transitional measures for the retraining          Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
of customs agent in view of the new Community                      Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
circumstances.                                                     Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.


title: Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2015  — Kakol v Commission (Civil Service — Competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 — Conditions for eligibility — Not admitted to the competition — Failure to state reasons — Admitted to an earlier similar competition — Specific duty to state reasons — Action for annulment — Action for compensation)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2015 — Kakol v Commission
   (Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 - Conditions for eligibility - Not admitted to the competition - Failure to state reasons - Admitted to an earlier similar competition - Specific duty to state reasons - Action for annulment - Action for compensation))
   (2015/C 089/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: F. Frabetti, lawyer, and subsequently by: R. Duta, lawyer)

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

      Re:

      F-1/14: Application for annulment of the decision of EPSO not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage because of her level of education which does not correspond to completed university studies of at least three years attested to by a diploma relevant to the post, or equivalent training/an equivalent professional qualification relevant to the post.

      F-48/14: Application for annulment, firstly, of the decision of 14 February 2014 by which the selection board in selection procedure EU Careers EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-AD 5 confirmed, after re-examination, the initial decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of the competition because her level of education did not correspond to a full cycle of university studies equivalent to at least three years, as evidenced by a diploma related to the nature of the duties, or professional training/qualification related to the nature of the duties and of an equivalent level and, secondly, insofar as necessary, of the initial decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Removes Case F-1/14 from the Register of the Tribunal;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of 14 February 2014 of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/177/10 not to admit Ms Kakol to that competition;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case F-48/14;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission, in Case F-1/14, to pay the costs incurred by Ms Kakol and to bear its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission, in Case F-48/14, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Kakol.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 54, and OJ C 235, 21.7.2015, p. 35.


title: Case C-467/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giovanni Dell'Orto (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Directive 2004/80/EC — Concept of victim in criminal proceedings — Legal person — Return of property seized in the course of criminal proceedings)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giovanni Dell'Orto
   (Case C-467/05) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Directive 2004/80/EC - Concept of ‘victim’ in criminal proceedings - Legal person - Return of property seized in the course of criminal proceedings)
   (2007/C 199/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Milano
   Party in the main proceedings
   Giovanni Dell'Orto

      joined party: Saipem SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 9 of Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings and Article 17 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Definition of victim including ‘any other persons affected by crime’ — Right to compensation of such persons
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, in criminal proceedings and, in particular, in enforcement proceedings following a judgment which resulted in a final criminal conviction, such as those in the main action, the concept of ‘victim’ for the purposes of the Framework Decision does not include legal persons who have suffered harm directly caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-459/04: Action brought on 29 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/12

         Action brought on 29 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-459/04)
   (2005/C 45/24)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Kreppel and J. Enegren, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work 1 by failing to define the necessary capabilities and aptitudes required of persons designated to organise preventive and protective services related to health and safety and

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 7(8) of the directive does not provide for complete harmonisation in the different Member States of the definition of capabilities and aptitudes required of persons carrying out activities related to protective and preventive services, but gives the Member States discretion to define the knowledge required to comply with the provision. The definitions in the national legislation must, however, be above a certain minimum level so that the directive may be implemented in an acceptable manner.
   The national legislation must include, as a minimum, a reference to an objective means of establishing that the person in question has undergone the required training and actually has the necessary experience and knowledge.
   Neither the regulation nor the guidelines issued by the Arbetsmiljöverket (Work Environment Authority) include the definition of the capabilities or aptitudes required of persons carrying out activities relating to the work environment that is necessary for the correct transposition of Article 7(8).