title: Case C-45/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Spector Photo Group NV, Chris Van Raemdonck v Commissie voor het Bank-, Financie- en Assurantiewezen (CBFA) (Directive 2003/6 — Insider dealing — Use of inside information — Sanctions — Conditions)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Spector Photo Group NV, Chris Van Raemdonck v Commissie voor het Bank-, Financie- en Assurantiewezen (CBFA)
   (Case C-45/08) (1)

   (Directive 2003/6 - Insider dealing - Use of inside information - Sanctions - Conditions)
   2010/C 51/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Spector Photo Group NV, Chris Van Raemdonck

      Defendant: Commissie voor het Bank-, Financie- en Assurantiewezen (CBFA)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 14 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) and of Article 1 of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC (OJ 2003 L 339, p. 70) — Use of inside information — Maximum harmonisation leaving Member States with no discretion as regards the definition of insider dealing — Sanctions which may be imposed — Conditions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               On a proper interpretation of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), the fact that a person as referred to in the second subparagraph of that provision, in possession of inside information, acquires or disposes of, or tries to acquire or dispose of, for his own account or for the account of a third party, either directly or indirectly, the financial instruments to which that information relates implies that that person has ‘used that information’ within the meaning of that provision, but without prejudice to the rights of the defence and, in particular, to the right to be able to rebut that presumption. The question whether that person has infringed the prohibition on insider dealing must be analysed in the light of the purpose of that directive, which is to protect the integrity of the financial markets and to enhance investor confidence, which is based, in particular, on the assurance that investors will be placed on an equal footing and protected from the misuse of inside information.

               2.

               Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/6 must be interpreted as meaning that gains realised from insider dealing may constitute a relevant element for the purposes of determining a sanction which is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The method of calculation of those economic gains and, in particular, the date or the period to be taken into account are to be determined by national law.

               3.

               Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/6 must be interpreted as meaning that, if, in addition to the administrative sanctions laid down in that provision, a Member State has introduced the possibility of imposing a criminal financial sanction, it is not necessary, for the purposes of assessing whether the administrative sanction is effective, proportionate and dissuasive, to take account of the possibility and/or the level of a criminal sanction which may subsequently be imposed.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 July 2003 in Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P: Chronopost and Others (Appeal — State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector — Concept of State aid — Criterion of private operator acting under normal market conditions)

text:
C 200/4                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                23.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                              3.    Reserves the costs.
                            of 3 July 2003
                                                                              (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001 of OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
in Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P:
                    Chronopost and Others (1)
(Appeal — State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking
entrusted with a service of general economic interest —
Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary not
operating in a reserved sector — Concept of State aid —
Criterion of private operator acting under normal market                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              conditions)
                                                                                of 10 July 2003
                           (2003/C 200/06)
                                                                              in Case C-87/01 P: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities v Conseil des communes et régions d'Europe
                                                                                (CCRE) (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Appeal — Commission decision effecting set-off between
                                                                              two claims governed by separate legal orders — Set-off in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     disregard of the rules of national law governing one of the
                      the European Court Reports)                                                claims concerned — Illegality)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/07)
In Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P, Chrono-
post SA, established in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), (repre-                                      (Language of the case: French)
sented by V. Bouaziz Torron and D. Berlin) (C-83/01 P),
LaPoste, established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France) (repre-
sented by H. Lehman) (C-94/01 P) French Republic (Agents:                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
G. de Bergues and F. Million) (C-93/01 P): Appeals against the                                      the European Court Reports)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 December 2000 in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v
Commission [2000] ECR II-4055, seeking to have that judg-
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:                   In Case C-87/01 P, Commission of the European Communities
Union française de l'express (Ufex), established in Roissy-en-                (Agents: P. Oliver and H. M. H. Speyart): Appeal against the
France (France), DHL International, established in Roissy-en-                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
France, Federal express international (France) SNC, established               Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in
in Gennevilliers (France), CRIE SA established in Asnières                    Case T-105/99 CEMR v Commission [2000] ECR II-4099,
(France) (represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and J. Derenne)                  seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
and Commission of the European Communities, the Court,                        the proceedings being: Conseil des communes et régions d'Eu-
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-                         rope (CCRE), established in Paris (France) (represented by
P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) (Presidents of                     F. Herbert and F. Renard), the Court, composed of:
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                  G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet and
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges;                     R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Admin-                  Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris, N. Colneric, S. von
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July                   Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,
2003, in which it:                                                            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given
                                                                              a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:
1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the           1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      European Communities of 14 December 2000 in Case T-613/                       European Communities of 14 December 2000 in Case T-105/
      97 Ufex and Others v Commission;                                              99 CEMR v Commission;


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2005 in Case C-543/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck in Christine Dodl, Petra Oberhollenzer v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 — Family benefits — Child-raising allowance — Entitlement to benefits of the same kind in the Member State of employment and the Member State of residence)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 7 June 2005
   in Case C-543/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck in Christine Dodl, Petra Oberhollenzer v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (1)

   (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 - Family benefits - Child-raising allowance - Entitlement to benefits of the same kind in the Member State of employment and the Member State of residence)
   (2005/C 182/25)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-543/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Innsbruck (Austria), made by decision of 16 December 2003, received at the Court on 29 December 2003, in the proceedings between Christine Dodl, Petra Oberhollenzer and Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 June 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               A person has the status of an employed or self-employed person within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 where he is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, on a compulsory or optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of that regulation, irrespective of the existence of an employment relationship. It is for the national court to make the necessary enquiries to determine whether the claimants in the main proceedings belonged to a branch of the Austrian social security system during the periods in respect of which the allowances in issue were applied for and, accordingly, whether they were 'employed persons' within the meaning of Article 1(a).

               2.

               Where the legislation of the Member State of employment and that of the Member State of residence of an employed person each provide for an entitlement to family benefits in respect of the same member of that person's family and for the same period, the Member State responsible for paying those benefits is, in principle, the Member State of employment pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 410/2002 of 27 February 2002.
               However, where a person having the care of children, in particular the spouse or partner of the employed person, carries out a professional or trade activity in the Member State of residence, the family benefits must be paid by that Member State in application of Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 574/72, as amended by Regulation No 410/2002, irrespective of who is designated as directly entitled to those benefits by the legislation of that State. In that situation, the payment of family benefits by the Member State of employment is to be suspended up to the sum of family benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence.

      (1)  OJ C 850 of 03.04.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Douai by judgment of 27 January 1995, rectified by judgment of 31 May 1995, in the case of AGS Assedic Pas de Calais against François Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator of Etablissements Pierre Gilson (Case C-235/95)

text:
No C 229/ 14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities against the Italian Republic
The obligatory nature of Article 189 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty                                        Case C-237/95 )
means that Member States must transpose directives into                                              ( 95/C 229/29 )
national law within the period laid down by those directives .
The necessary measures had not been adopted by the French
Republic when the period fixed by Article 44 of Directive               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
92/50/EEC expired on 1 July 1993 .                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
f 1 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                        Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de             — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Douai by judgment of 27 January 1995 , rectified by                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt or to
judgment of 3 1 May 1 995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pas de                  communicate the laws, regulations and administrative
Calais against Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                 of Etablissements Pierre Gilson                               89/369/EEC ( J ) of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air
                                                                               pollution from new municipal waste-incineration plants
                            Case C-235 /95 )                                   and Council Directive 89/429/EEC ( 2 ) of 21 June 1989
                             ( 95/C 229/28 )                                   on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal
                                                                               waste-incineration plants,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                  — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 ( Court of Appeal ), Douai of 27 January 1995 , rectified by
judgment of 31 May 1995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pasde              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Calais v. Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator of
Etablissements Pierre Gilson, which was received at the
 Court Registry on the following questions :                            Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                        is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, means that Member States are
 1 . Is Article 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                     under an obligation to comply with the time limits
       20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of              prescribed in directives for their transposition . On the
       the Member States relating to the protection of                   expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 1 December
       employees in the event of the insolvency of their                 1990, the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions
       employer ( ] ) of general scope and obligatory and must it        necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the
       therefore have direct effect in national law ?                    form of order sought by the Commission .
 2 . In the absence of the Commission's having been                      0 ) OJ No L 163 , 14 . 6 . 1989 , p . 32 .
       informed in accordance with Article 1 1 of the Directive          ( 2 ) OJ No L 203 , 15 . 7. 1989 , p . 50 .
       of 20 October 1980, is Article D. 143-2 of the French
       Code du Travail ( which provides that the maximum
       amount of the guarantee provided for in Article
       L. 143-1 1-8 of the Code du Travail is set at thirteen times
       the monthly ceiling used to calculate contributions to
       the unemployment insurance scheme where the claims
       result from provisions of legislation or regulations or           Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
       from stipulations of a collective agreement and arose                   European Communities against the Italian Republic
       under a contract of employment which was concluded at
       a date more than six months before the decision
                                                                                ( Case C-238/95 )
       declaring a judicial composition, and that in other cases                                      ( 95/C 229/30 )
       the amount of the guarantee is limited to four times
       the aforementioned ceiling) compatible with that
       Directive ?
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                          1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
  (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .                              represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
                                                                          Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-50/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 January 2017 by Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2016 in Case T-561/15, Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v EUIPO — Universidad de la Rioja (Universidad Internacional de la Rioja UNIR)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/2

         Appeal brought on 31 January 2017 by Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2016 in Case T-561/15, Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v EUIPO — Universidad de la Rioja (Universidad Internacional de la Rioja UNIR)
   (Case C-50/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja (represented by: C. Lema Devesa and A. Porras Fernandez-Toledano, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 1 June 2017, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, S.A. to bear its own costs.


title: Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07), Luigi Soini (C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinato Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, alimentari e forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia (Agriculture — Regulations (EC) Nos 1493/1999, 753/2002 and 1429/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — Labelling of wines — Use of names of vine varieties or synonyms thereof — Geographical indication Tokaj for wines originating in Hungary — Possible use of vine variety name Tocai friulano or Tocai italico in addition to the geographical indication of certain wines originating in Italy — Exclusion after a transitional period of thirteen years expiring on 31 March 2007 — Validity — Legal basis — Article 34 EC — Principle of non-discrimination — Principles of international law on treaties — Accession of Hungary to the European Union — Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/14

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07), Luigi Soini (C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinato Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, alimentari e forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
   (Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulations (EC) Nos 1493/1999, 753/2002 and 1429/2004 - Common organisation of the market in wine - Labelling of wines - Use of names of vine varieties or synonyms thereof - Geographical indication ‘Tokaj’ for wines originating in Hungary - Possible use of vine variety name ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai italico’ in addition to the geographical indication of certain wines originating in Italy - Exclusion after a transitional period of thirteen years expiring on 31 March 2007 - Validity - Legal basis - Article 34 EC - Principle of non-discrimination - Principles of international law on treaties - Accession of Hungary to the European Union - Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement)
   (2008/C 209/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07), Luigi Soini (C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinato Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07)

      Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, alimentari e forestali and Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Regulations 1493/1999 and 753/2002 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11) — Interpretation of Article 34(2) EC — Designation of wines produced in Hungary and in the Community — Abolition of the designation ‘Tocai friulano’ — Discrimination against the producers and users of that designation as compared to the producers and users of other designations
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as meaning that, under Article 2 of that Act, the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, in so far as they prohibit the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007, form an integral part of the acquis communautaire existing on 1 May 2004 and, after being reproduced in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation No 753/2002, continued to apply after that date.

               2.

               Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine constitutes an adequate legal basis on which the Commission of the European Communities may adopt the provisions of Regulation No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

               3.

               The second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC does not preclude the provisions of Regulation No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

               4.

               Article 19(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the provisions of Regulation No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

               5.

               Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) and in particular the provision in Article 24(6) of that agreement, those provisions do not preclude the adoption of measures such as those laid down in Regulation No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-278/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Settlement by the State of debts incurred by agricultural cooperatives)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-278/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Settlement by the State of debts incurred by agricultural cooperatives)
   (2004/C 118/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-278/00: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and C. Tsiavou), with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou), with an address for service in Luxembourg – action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2002/458/EC of 1 March 2002 on the aid schemes implemented by Greece in favour of the settlement of debts by the agricultural cooperatives in 1992 and 1994, including the aids for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO (OJ 2002 L 159, p. 1), or in the alternative the annulment of Article 2 of that decision – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.


title: Case C-383/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-423/12: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/15

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Skype against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 May 2015 in Case T-423/12: Skype v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-383/15 P)
   (2015/C 354/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Skype (represented by: A. Carboni, M. Browne, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky IP International Ltd, Sky plc

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should order that:

               —

               the decision of the General Court dated 5 May 2015 in T-423/12 be annulled in its entirety and the application be remitted to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

               —

               that OHIM and any intervening parties in this Appeal shall bear their own costs and pay the Appellant’s costs of these proceedings and those of (i) the appeal before the General Court in Case T-423/12; (ii) the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case ‘ 1561/2010-4; and (iii) Opposition B 1 023 680 before the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant’s sole Ground of Appeal is that the General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 0f 26 February 2009 on the Community Trade Mark (1) in giving its decision in case number T-423/12 relating to Community Trade Mark application no. 4 546 248 (the ‘Contested Mark’). In particular, the General Court made the following errors in reaching its decision to uphold the Respondent’s finding of likelihood of confusion:

               1.

               it incorrectly assessed the characteristics of the relevant public, failing to take account of the fact that the Appellant’s Skype service was based on a very new and innovative form of technology as at the priority date of the Contested Mark (the ‘Relevant Date’), and therefore that the relevant public had an above average level of technical expertise and an enhanced capability of distinguishing between brands;

               2.

               it appears to have wrongly assumed that the Appellant’s acceptance that the goods and services covered by the Contested Mark are identical to certain of the goods and services covered by the earlier mark was also an acceptance that the earlier mark enjoyed an enhanced distinctive character and/or reputation in respect of those areas of crossover with the specification for the Contested Mark as at the Relevant Date;

               3.

               it misapplied the law in several respects when evaluating the Respondent’s assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in issue, in particular, by relying on the incorrect legal fiction that the average consumer reads single short words from left to right; by placing undue weight on the coincidence of the letters S-K-Y at the start of both marks; by failing to take account of the graphical element of the Contested Mark; and by failing to appreciate that the conceptual difference between the marks counteracts any visual or aural similarity;

               4.

               it made two significant errors in upholding the Respondent’s finding that the earlier mark has an enhanced distinctive character in relation to goods and services outside the Interveners’ ‘core’ television broadcasting services: first, it wrongly relied on use of the earlier mark in relation to the Interveners’ ‘core’ services to infer distinctiveness for other services: and secondly, it took account of evidence of use that post-dated the Relevant Date;

               5.

               it misapplied the law in several respects when conducting the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion by failing to take into account:

                           i.

                           the substantial reputation enjoyed by the Contested Mark at the Relevant Date; and

                           ii.

                           real-world evidence that the marks in issue have peacefully coexisted in the market place for over ten years, with no infringement action having been brought by the Interveners, which is strongly indicative that there was no likelihood of confusion at the Relevant Date.

         Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the Court: (1) annuls the decision of the General Court in case number T-423/12 and remits the application to the Respondent in order to allow it to proceed; and (2) orders that the costs of the proceedings be awarded to the Appellant.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-357/97)

text:
6 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 370/3
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport                Miinchen by order of that court of 17 September 1997 in
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be                         the case of Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen eG v.
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable                                   Hauptzollamt Lindau
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                                                (Case C-356/97)
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                                 ( 97/C 370/05 )
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway ?                       Miinchen ( Finance Court, Munich ) of 17 September 1997,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1997, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Molkereigenossenschaft
                                                                        Wiedergeltingen eG v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs
                                                                        Office ) Lindau on the following question :
                                                                        is the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 2 ) of Commission
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                    Regulation ( EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 ( OJ L 57,
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 28 August               10 . 3 . 1993 , p. 12 ), relating to the imposition of penalties
1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                     on dairies ( purchasers of milk ), valid ?
Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck Liegenschaftsverwal
tungsgesellschaft mbH and (2 ) Bergdorf Wohnbau
Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl Hacker
                               intervening
                          ( Case C-355 /97 )                            Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
                            ( 97/C 370/04 )
                                                                                ( Case C-357/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/06 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of 28 August 1997,             Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 October                  by the Commission of the European Communities,
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landesgrund              represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
verkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck              as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and ( 2 ) Bergdorf             office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its
Wohnbau Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl                        Legal Service , Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.
Hacker intervening, on the following question:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of                   a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                        under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                               comply with Council Directive 92/29 (') of 31 March
founded ('), which provides that notwithstanding the                         1992 concerning the minimum safety and health
obligations under the treaties on which the European                         requirements for improved medical treatment on
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its                    board vessels and/or by failing to inform the
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five                 Commission thereof; and
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995 ),
to be interpreted as meaning that the transitional                      b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
provisions in Paragraph 40 ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 ( Landesgesetzblatt fur Tirol                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 61 /1996 ), which entered into force on 1 October
1996 , fall within the definition of existing legislation,              Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
or are those provisions to be regarded as new                           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
legislation if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tirol                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the                     down in the directive . That period expired on
present case ?                                                          31 December 1994 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
(') OJ C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ L 113 , 30 . 4 . 1992 , p . 19 .


title: Case C-98/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy)) — Francesca Sorge v Poste Italiane SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work — Clause 8 — Details to be included in a fixed-term contract concluded for the purpose of replacing an absent worker — Reduction of the general level of protection afforded to workers — Interpretation in conformity with European Union law)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy)) — Francesca Sorge v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-98/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work - Clause 8 - Details to be included in a fixed-term contract concluded for the purpose of replacing an absent worker - Reduction of the general level of protection afforded to workers - Interpretation in conformity with European Union law)
   2010/C 221/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesca Sorge

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Trani — Interpretation of clause 8 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Domestic legislation that does not provide, on the signature of a fixed-term replacement contract, for the names of the persons replaced and the reasons for their replacement to be indicated

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 contained in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which has abolished the requirement for the employer to indicate in fixed-term contracts concluded for the purpose of replacing absent workers the names of those workers and the reasons for their replacement, and which merely provides that such fixed-term contracts must be in writing and must indicate the reasons for the use of those contracts, in so far as those new conditions are offset by the adoption of other safeguards or protective measures or concern only a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

               2.

               Because clause 8(3) of that framework agreement has no direct effect, it is for the national court, if it should be led to conclude that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with European Union law, not to disapply that provision but, so far as possible, to give it an interpretation in conformity with Directive 1999/70 and with the objective pursued by that framework agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-439/14 and C-488/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others (C-488/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC — Public procurement — Review procedures — National legislation making the admissibility of appeals against the acts of a contracting authority subject to giving a ‘good conduct guarantee’ — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others (C-488/14)
   (Joined Cases C-439/14 and C-488/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - National legislation making the admissibility of appeals against the acts of a contracting authority subject to giving a ‘good conduct guarantee’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy))
   (2016/C 419/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SC Star Storage SA (C-439/14), SC Max Boegl România SRL, SC UTI Grup SA, Astaldi SpA, SC Construcții Napoca SA (C-488/14)

      Defendants: Institutul Naţional de Cercetare-Dezvoltare în Informatică (ICI) (C-439/14), RA Aeroportul Oradea, SC Porr Construct SRL, Teerag-Asdag Aktiengesellschaft SC Col-Air Trading SRL, AVZI SA, Trameco SA, Iamsat Muntenia SA (C-488/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and Article 1(1) to (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66, and read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the admissibility of any action against an act of the contracting authority subject to the obligation for the applicant to constitute a good conduct guarantee that it provides to the contracting authority, if that guarantee must be refunded to the applicant whatever the outcome of the action.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

      OJ C 26, 26.01.2015.


title: Appeal brought on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens Staal BV against the judgment delivered on 24 October 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-244/94 between Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens Groep BV and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA (Case C-441/97 P)

text:
C 94/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The power allowed to Member States to derogate from                  Ð Infringement of the evidential principles of the rule of
the principle of the unity of excise duties (taxes and                   law, applicable in penal proceedings, that the
structure) and maintain or create additional national                    imposition of severe penalties may not be based on an
charges for specific purposes in respect of a single product             assessment of the evidence which manifestly violates
or a single category of products may only be construed                   the rules of thought and logic. The appellant submits
strictly. Any other construction would undermine the                     in the present appeal that the contradictions which
effectiveness of Community legislation on products subject               have been pointed out in the contested judgment are
to duty since it would give rise to the establishment of                 manifest and follow from the Court of First Instance's
parallel' national indirect taxation which would call in                own findings, so that there is no need for any further
question the objectives of Directive 92/12/EEC in the                    examination of the facts by the Court of Justice.
context of the internal market.
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of the rule of law in
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                            dubio pro reo, which states that in penal proceedings
(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.                                         full proof of the offence is required and doubts and
                                                                         uncertainties regarding the evidence must be assessed
                                                                         in favour of the accused and exclude the imposition of
                                                                         penalties. The presumption of innocence is a
                                                                         fundamental principle which corresponds to the
                                                                         generally accepted view of the rule of law and is
Appeal brought on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn                      furthermore codified in Article 6(2) of the European
AG against the judgment delivered on 21 October 1997                     Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                       Fundamental Freedoms, and hence to be respected by
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                   the European Union via Article F(2) of the EU Treaty
Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the                           as a fundamental right. The in dubio pro reo principle
          Commission of the European Communities                         applies not only in the field of criminal law in the
                      (Case C-436/97 P)                                  strict sense, but also in the law of administrative
                                                                         offences.
                         (98/C 94/12)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 14.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 October
1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-229/94 between Deutsche Bahn AG and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              Appeal brought on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsver-
on 29 December 1997 by Deutsche Bahn AG, represented                 einigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and
by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer, Tessin,               Hoogovens Staal BV against the judgment delivered on
Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, with an address for                     24 October 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                 Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
31 Grand Rue.                                                        European Communities in Case T-244/94 between Wirt-
                                                                     schaftsvereinigung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          AG and Hoogovens Groep BV and the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, supported by the Council of the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance     of       European Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati
     the European Communities of 21 October 1997 (1)         in                                Piani SpA
     Case T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission,           in                            (Case C-441/97 P)
     so far as it dismissed the application for annulment   of
                                                                                (98/C 94/13)
     Articles 2 to 4 of the Commission's decision           of
     29 March 1994 (IV/33.941 Ð HOV-SVZ/MCN),
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October
Ð annul Articles 2 to 4 of the said Commission Decision,             1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
                                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Case T-244/94 between Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl,
                                                                     Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and Hoogovens
                                                                     Groep BV and the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Communities, supported by the Council of the European
                                                                     Union, the Italian Republic and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA
Ð Infringement of the principle of the rule of law,                  was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     applicable in penal proceedings generally, that the             Communities on 30 December 1997 by Wirtschaftsvereini-
     offence complained of must be sufficiently certain to           gung Stahl, Thyssen Stahl AG, Preussag Stahl AG and
     make the necessary proof and examination of that                Hoogovens Staal BV (formerly Hoogovens Groep BV),
     proof possible at all; infringement of the general              represented by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of
     obligation to state reasons, which applies to courts            Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, and Erik
     too.                                                            H. Pijnacker Hordijk, Advocaat, of De Brauw, Blackstone,
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/7
Westbroek, Brussels, with an address for service in                 Azienda Agricola Le Canne' Srl, represented by Giulio
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                  Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonetto, of
Rue.                                                                the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of the last named, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    the European Communities of 24 October 1997 (1) in
                                                                    Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
    Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and
                                                                         Instance and uphold the claims put forward by the
    Others v. Commission,
                                                                         applicant at first instance,
Ð annul Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of 12 April
    1994 concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the               Ð declare null and void the Commission's                telex
    public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ L 112, 3.5.1994,                No 12 497 of 27 October 1995,
    p. 64),
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay restitution for damage
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 suffered in the amount set out in the application,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
                                                                         instance and in the appeal.
Infringement of Community law by the Court of First
Instance, in that it
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð misinterpreted the validity and scope of the Fifth Steel
    Aid Code,                                                       The applicant maintains that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    was wrong to consider that the principle of collegiality
Ð failed sufficiently to take into account that State               was observed. The Court of First Instance should have
    subsidies are no longer indispensable' to attain               declared the rules of procedure of the Commission
    objectives of the ECSC Treaty if they are granted more          inapplicable in so far as they allowed the acting head of
    than once only,                                                 unit to take the decision in question on his own authority.
Ð took no account of the fact that the contested                    It further maintains that the grounds of the Court of First
    Commission decision discloses a serious error of                Instance as to infringement of the principle of the right to
    assessment by the Commission simply because the                 be heard and infringement of the obligation to provide a
    decision makes its aim the strengthening of the Italian         statement of reasons were erroneous and inconsistent.
    steel industry,
                                                                    Finally, it maintains that the Court of First Instance
Ð proceeded from the incorrect assumption that                      infringed and misapplied Articles 44(1) and 47 of
    Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty does not impose a               Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (2) and Article 7 of
    strict prohibition of aid, but permits the Community            Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (3).
    institutions to approve all aid which may contribute to
    attaining the objectives of the Treaty.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 77, 16.3.1996, p. 11.
                                                                    (2) OJ L 376, 31.12.1986, p. 7.
( ) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 16.
 1
                                                                    (3) OJ L 112, 30.4.1988, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 16 January 1998 by Azienda Agricola
Le Canne' Srl, a company incorporated under Italian law,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
established in Porto Viro, against the judgment delivered           Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze by order of that court of
on 7 November 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the            23 January 1997 in the case of CSAR Centro Servizi
European Communities in Case T-218/95 between                       Acciai Rivestiti SpA against Direzione Regionale per le
Azienda Agricola Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the               Entrate della Toscana and Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
                    European Communities                                                         Firenze
                       (Case C-10/98 P)                                                      (Case C-13/98)
                         (98/C 94/14)                                                         (98/C 94/15)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European                 European Communities by order of the Commissione Tri-
Communities in Case T-218/95 (1) between Azienda Agri-              butaria Provinciale di Firenze (Provincial Tax Court,
cola Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the European                  Florence) of 23 January 1997, which was received at the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of              Court Registry on 20 January 1998, for a preliminary
the European Communities on 16 January 1998 by                      ruling in the case of CSAR Centro Servizi Acciai Rivestiti


title: Action brought on 7 April 1998 by the Republic of Austria against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-99/98)

text:
C 209/16             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
    Exemptions from the one-month delay                                  an aid measure which the Commission has held to be
    r u l e f o r t h e d e d u c t i o n o f VAT f r o m                incompatible with the common market, it may itself,
    1 January 1989 onwards                                               in accordance with the fundamental principles of
                                                                         Community law, take this into account in order to
    The French Government points out that this measure                   waive reimbursement of the measure in question.
    enabled the PMU to deduct VAT paid on its
    purchases by reference to the month when those                  (1) OJ C 90, 26.3.1994, p. 23.
    purchases were made and not the following month,
    as would have been the normal rule.
    Since its inception in 1969, that cash-flow facility
    was offset, however, by the lodging of a permanent
    non-interest-bearing deposit with the Treasury.
                                                                    References for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
                                                                    Stato (Council of State) by orders of that court of
    It is true, as the Court of First Instance observed, that
                                                                    20 January 1998, in the cases of (1) Questore (senior
    the Commission made a factual error in its decision
                                                                    police official), Macerata v. Claudio Peroni, (2) Questore,
    in so far as it stated that the Treasury deposit had
                                                                    Genoa v. Eliana Fasciolo, (3) Questore, Genoa v. Umberto
    only existed since 1989.
                                                                    Merlo, (4) Questore, Catanzaro v. Patrizia Caffarelli, (5)
                                                                    Questore, Milan v. Chiara Picerno, (6) Questore, Imperia
    The Commission considered that the measure at issue
                                                                    v. Gianluca Barrese, Andrea De Sanctis and SaS Riviera,
    constituted a State aid, compatible with the common
                                                                    (7) Questore, Pavia v. Giovanni Giacchetto and (8)
    market before 1989 by reason of the fact that any
                                                                               Questore, Savona v. Francesco Amato
    disturbance thereby caused to the common market
    was negligible. After 1 January 1989, by reason of                                (Case C-86/98 to C-93/98)
    the existence of the compensatory deposit with the                                       (98/C 209/30)
    Treasury, the Commission took the view that it no
    longer constituted State aid.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    The Court of First Instance annulled the                        European Communities by orders of the Consiglio di Stato
    Commission's assessment regarding the period after              of 20 January 1998, which were received at the Court
    1 January 1989 on the basis of factors essentially              Registry on 13 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    related to the preceding period and the mere finding            the cases of (1) Questore, Macerata v. Claudio Peroni,
    that the compensation for the year 1989 had been                (2) Questore, Genoa v. Eliana Fasciolo, (3) Questore,
    inadequate.                                                     Genoa v. Umberto Merlo, (4) Questore, Catanzaro v.
                                                                    Patrizia Caffarelli, (5) Questore, Milan v. Chiara Picerno,
    However, the Court of First Instance could not rely             (6) Questore, Imperia v. Gianluca Barrese, Andrea De
    solely on those factors in order to infer that the              Sanctis and SaS Riviera, (7) Questore, Pavia v. Giovanni
    Commission's assessment in respect of the entire                Giacchetto and (8) Questore, Savona v. Francesco Amato
    period after 1 January 1989 was erroneous. In this              on the following question:
    respect also the judgment of the Court of First
    Instance is vitiated by flawed reasoning and by an              Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services
    inadequate statement of grounds.                                preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in
                                                                    view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to
(B) Recovery of aid which is incompatible with the                  prevent fraud that justify it?
    common market
    Since the Commission found in its Decision that the
    PMU's exemption from the housing levy as from
    1989 was incompatible with the Treaty, but that the
    recipient was required to repay amounts involved
    only with effect from the date when the procedure               Action brought on 7 April 1998 by the Republic of
    was opened in 1991, by reason of the fact that it                     Austria against the Commission of the European
    could legitimately have entertained expectations                                          Communities
    based on the earlier decision of the Conseil d'EÂtat,                                   (Case C-99/98)
    the Court of First Instance essentially held that the                                    (98/C 209/31)
    Commission could not itself take into account the
    recipient's legitimate expectations, as relied upon by
    the Member State, in order to dismiss the                       An action against the Commission of the European
    requirement to repay aid which it deemed                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
    incompatible with the common market.                            the European Communities on 7 April 1998 by the
                                                                    Republic of Austria, represented by Dr. Wolf Okresek,
    The French Government believes that the judgment                Head of Section, Director of the Constitutional Section of
    of the Court of First Instance is also vitiated in this         the Office of the Federal Chancellor of the Republic of
    respect by an error of law and that when the                    Austria, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Commission is advised by a Member State of                      office of Dr. Josef Magerl, Ambassador, Austrian Embassy,
    legitimate expectations on the part of the recipient of         3 Rue des Bains.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Communities on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of Sweden,
                                                                    represented by Lotty Nordling, Rättschef, with an address
                                                                    for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy, 2 Rue
Ð annul Commission Decision SG(98) D/1124 of                        H. Heine, Luxembourg.
     9 February 1998 in its entirety on the grounds of
     breach of the EC Treaty and breach of essential
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
     procedural requirements and misuse of powers by the
     Commission,
                                                                    Ð pursuant to Article 173, declare invalid the 1998 TAC
                                                                         Regulation (EC No 45/98) (1), in so far as the
Ð order the Commission of the European Communities                       regulation provides for the allocation of cod in
     to pay the costs.                                                   zone IIIbcd, and
                                                                    Ð order the council to pay the Kingdom of Sweden's
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      costs.
Breach of the EC Treaty, breach of essential procedural             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
requirements and misuse of powers: The aid which is the
subject of the proceedings is to be regarded as existing aid,       Article 121(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of
since the Commission failed to express its opinion on the           accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
proposed aid within a reasonable time. The opening of a             Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
formal examination procedure therefore conflicts with the           to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
Treaty, since the legally incorrect classification as a newly       as worded according to Council Decision 95/1/EC,
notified aid is thereby effected and the application of the         Euratom, ECSC (2), should be annulled:
prohibition of implementation under Article 93(3)
expressly stated. The applicant considers that by the letter
of 19 March 1997 at the latest it transmitted in full to the        For the year 1998 a quantity of 86 547 tonnes of
Commission all the information which the Commission                 Community cod is available for fishing in Community
required to be able to express an opinion on the                    waters in zone IIIb, c, d. According to the conditions laid
compatibility of the measure with the Treaty; none of the           down in Article 121(1) of the Act of Accession, Sweden
later questions' of the Commission were in any way                 should have been allocated 29 921 tonnes (0.35037
material for the decision, but evidently served only to             50 000 + 0.4  36 947  400  1 976) of that amount.
delay a decision.                                                   This is taking into account the fact that the transfer of
                                                                    400 tonnes to Poland under the agreement between the
                                                                    Community and Poland has been deducted from Sweden's
The Commission asserts that it is entitled to oppose the            quota and that in 1998 1 976 tonnes of Sweden's quota is
implementation of the measures after proper notification            to be transferred to other Member States in accordance
by the Member State under the Lorenz procedure'. That              with the agreement made in connection with the signing
opposition is evidently intended to have the consequence            of the EEA Agreement. Instead, Sweden has been allocated
that thereafter (ex tunc or ex nunc?) there is no existing          under Regulation (EC) No 45/98 29 246 tonnes, which is
aid. That follows from the final paragraph of the                   675 tonnes less than results from the Act of Accession.
Background' section of the contested decision and from
the last sentence of Point 2.1 and the last sentence of             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December 1997
Point 5.1 of the Commission's Guidelines'. In the                      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the
applicant's opinion, there is no such right of opposition;              total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under
moreover, even supposing that it did exist as stated in the             which they may be fished (OJ L 12, 19.1.1998, p. 1).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1.
Commission's Guidelines', it was exercised too late, and
is therefore of no effect.
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
                                                                    gerichtshof by order of that court of 5 March 1998 in the
Action brought on 9 April 1998 by the Kingdom of                    case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v.
     Sweden against the Council of the European Union                   Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V.
                       (Case C-100/98)                                                       (Case C-101/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/33)
                        (98/C 209/32)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Council of the European Union was             European Communities by an order of the 1st Civil
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Chamber of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of


title: Case C-58/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(i) — Exemption of betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling — Conditions and limitations — Discretionary power of the Member States)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Leo-Libera GmbH v Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide
   (Case C-58/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(i) - Exemption of betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling - Conditions and limitations - Discretionary power of the Member States)
   2010/C 221/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Leo-Libera GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Buchholz in der Nordheide

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation exempting from VAT only certain forms of betting and lotteries and excluding from that exemption all other forms of gambling

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 135(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exercise of the discretionary power of the Member States to fix conditions and limitations on the exemption from value added tax provided for by that provision allows those States to exempt from that tax only certain forms of gambling.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/1

         (2008/C 116/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

      OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

      OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

      OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

      OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

      OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

   These texts are available on:

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94: Angelo Innamorati v. European Parliament (Officials - Competition - Rejection of application - Statement of reasons for a decision of the selection board in an open competition)

text:
22 . 7. 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 189/15
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              — Distribution of railway tickets by travel agents ) ( ) — the
                       of 30 May 1995                                Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
                                                                     composition ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President, R.
    in Case T-289/94 : Angelo Innamorati v. European                 Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. Garria-Valdecasas and C. W.
                         Parliament { l )                            Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
(Officiais — Competition — Rejection of application —                6 June 1995 , in which it:
Statement ofreasons for a decision of the selection board in
                    an open competition)                             1 , annuls Commission Decision 92/S68/EEC of
                         ( 95/C 189/30 )                                   25 November 1992 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                           Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/33.585 — Distribution
               (Language of the case: French)                              of railway tickets by travel agents);
In Case T-289/94 : Angelo Innamorati , a member of the               2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities and a candidate in open competition PE/59/A,             ( ] ) OJ No C 71 , 13 . 3 . 1993 .
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the         ( 2 ) OJ No L 366 , 15 . 12 . 1992 , p . 47.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener v.
European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio Garzôn Clariana,
Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) —
application for the annulment of the decision of the selection
board in open competition PE/59/A to award the applicant,             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the drafting test, a mark below the minimum required                                         of 8 June 1995
and not to admit him to the other tests in the competition —         in Case T-496/93 : Alain-Pierrè Allo v. Commission of the .
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of:                              European Communities ( l )
J. Biancarelli, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May           (Officials — Appointment — Appointing authority's power
                                                                     of assessment — Interests of the service — Statement of
1995 , in which it:
                                                                     reasons — Absence ofstaffreport — Effect on procedure —
                                                                     Procedure for filling middle management posts — right to a
1 , annuls the decision of the selection board in open                                              fair hearing)
     competition PE/59/A awarding the applicant a mark
     below the minimum required and refusing to admit him                                         ( 95/C 189/32 )
     to the other tests in the competition;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-496/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio, an official of the
(') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                     of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v . Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia
                                                                     and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             annulment of decisions appointing Mrs X as head of the
                        of 6 June 1995                               Commission's delegation in Romania and rejecting the
                                                                     applicant's application for that post and , second, for
in Case T-14/93 : Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer
                                                                     compensation for the material and non-material loss
      v. Commission of the European Communities (')                  suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and by
(Competition — Transport by rail — Legal basis for a                 reason of the absence from his personnel file of his staff
decision — Regulation (EEC) No 1 01 7/68 — Travel agents             report for the period 1989 to 1991 at the time when the
               — Sale of international tickets)                      applications for the post in question were considered — the
                         ( 95/C 189/31 )                             Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of B.
                                                                     Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
                                                                     Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
               (Language of the case: French)                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which
                                                                     it:
In Case T-14/93 : Union Internationale de Chemins de Fer,
having its head office in Paris, represented by Chantai              1 , dismisses the action;
Momège, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European                    2 , orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Communities ( Agents : Bernd Langeheine and Géraud de
Bergues ) — application for the annulment of Commission              f 1 ) OJ No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
Decision 92/568/EEC of 25 November 1992 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/33.585


title: Case F-94/07: Action brought on 21 September 2007 — Rebizant and Others v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/45

         Action brought on 21 September 2007 — Rebizant and Others v Commission
   (Case F-94/07)
   (2007/C 283/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jean Rebizant (Karlsruhe, Germany) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Lois and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare unlawful the decision fixing the promotion thresholds towards grade AD 13 applicable to officials under the ‘Research’/‘Joint Research Centre’ (JRC) and ‘Operations’ budget;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AD 13 under the 2006 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants are relying on the following pleas:

               —

               infringement of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’);

               —

               infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations and Article 9 of Annex XIII thereof;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

         The applicants state that, by setting the promotion threshold to Grade AD 13 at 98,5 for officials under the Research and JRC budgets, the Commission failed to take into account, first, the jobs which, under Article 9 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, were effectively vacant at the Research DG and the JRC DG and, second, the specific nature of the situation of officials covered by those budgets.
   The applicants maintain that, by failing to do this, the Commission has failed to comply with its decision of 20 July 2005 on the procedure for the promotion of officials remunerated from the research section of the general budget, a decision which aims to establish rules ensuring the principle of equal treatment is observed between officials under the different budgets.


title: Action brought on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union (Case C-36/98)

text:
11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/7
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            resources in accordance with environmental criteria. It
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                      should have been adopted pursuant to the procedure laid
Hardt, against the judgment delivered on 5 November                  down in Article 130s(2) of the Treaty, which requires the
1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance             Council to act unanimously. Consequently, the conclusion
of the European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125)                    of international agreements on such matters likewise
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament.                              requires such unanimity (second sentence of Article
                                                                     228(2)).
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     The position adopted by the Council, which followed the
Ð declare the appeal to be admissible and well-founded,              Commission's proposal, disregards Article 130s(2) as
                                                                     regards measures relating to the management of water
Ð set aside the judgment of 5 November 1997 of the                   resources. The fact that the contested decision was
     Court of First Instance (1),                                    approved on an incorrect legal basis means that it is
                                                                     automatically void.
Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
     order that it may declare the application for revision          (1) OJ L 342, 12.12.1997, p. 18.
     to be admissible,
Ð order the Parliament to pay the costs of the present
     proceedings and of those before the Court of First
     Instance.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1997, in the case of The Queen against Secretary
Unjustified failure to acknowledge as a new fact a                   of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
document drafted by the Rapporteur of the Budgetary                                               Savas
Control Committee of the European Parliament detailing
                                                                                (Case C-37/98)
the case of the Members' cash office and contesting point
by point the audit documentation drawn up by the                                             (98/C 113/17)
Parliament authorities with a view to proving the
appellant's guilt.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Divisional
( ) In Case T-26/89 (125) (OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 17).
 1
                                                                     Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 24 April 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 1998,
                                                                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                     Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                     Abdulnasir Savas, on the following questions.
Action brought on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                1. Is the agreement establishing an Association between
                                                                         the European Economic Community and Turkey,
                        (Case C-36/98)
                                                                         signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 (the
                         (98/C 113/16)                                   Agreement') together with the additional Protocol to
                                                                         the Agreement signed at Brussels on 23 November
                                                                         1970 (the additional Protocol') to be interpreted as
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         conferring benefits on a Turkish national who has (a)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         entered or (b) remained in the territory of a Member
Communities on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         State in breach of the immigration law of that
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, abogado
                                                                         Member State?
del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                     2. If the answer to either part of the first question is yes'
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              does (a) Article 13 of the Agreement (b) Article 41 of
                                                                         the additional Protocol have direct effect within the
Ð annul Council Decision 97/825/EC of 24 November                        national legal systems of Member States?
     1997 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on
     Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable use of           3. Does the Agreement together with the additional
     the river Danube (1),                                               Protocol prohibit the application by a Member State
                                                                         of a provision in its national law which refuses that
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.                                    Turkish national leave to remain on the territory of
                                                                         that Member State on the sole ground that his leave to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      enter or remain in the territory has expired?
The Kingdom of Spain considers that the Convention is                4. Where, despite the provisions of its national law, the
clearly designed to provide for the management of water                  competent authority in a Member State considers, in