title: Case C-81/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the case of Eurokeramik Gesellschaft mbh & Co KG against Gemeinnützige Salzburger Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH

text:
C 144/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
(Supreme Court) (Republic of Austria) of 29 January 2002,             The preliminary questions are identical to those in Case C-78/
received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2002, for a                 02.
preliminary ruling in the case of Herbert Karner Industrieauk-
tionen GmbH against Troostwijk GesmbH on the following
question:
Is Article 28 EC to be interpreted as precluding national
legislation which, irrespective of the truthfulness of infor-
mation, prohibits any reference therein to the fact that the
goods come from assets in a bankruptcy, where, in public
announcements or notifications intended for a large circle of
persons, the notice given states that the goods offered for sale      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
are from assets in a bankruptcy although the goods in question        Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
no longer form part of the assets in the bankruptcy?                  of 31 January 2002 in the case of Eurokeramik Gesell-
                                                                      schaft mbh & Co KG against Gemeinnützige Salzburger
                                                                                Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH
                                                                                (Case C-81/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/23)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the
       case of the Greek State against Katina Petrova
                        (Case C-79/02)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                      (Republic of Austria) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court
                       (2002/C 144/21)                                Registry on 11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      case of Eurokeramik Gesellschaft mbh & Co KG against
                                                                      Gemeinnützige Salzburger Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH on the
                                                                      following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court
                                                                      1.   Does a social housing association established as a limited
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           liability company of which there are two shareholders,
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
                                                                           each a regional or local authority, in carrying out the
Greek State against Katina Petrova on the following questions:
                                                                           objects laid down in its statutes which consist in the
                                                                           provision of social housing, meet needs in the general
The preliminary questions are identical to those in Case C-78/             interest not having an industrial or commercial character,
02.                                                                        and is the association therefore to be regarded as a body
                                                                           governed by public law for the purposes of Article 1(b)
                                                                           of Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993
                                                                           concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                           of public works contracts, where it carries out its activities
                                                                           with a limited intention to make a profit and is subject to
                                                                           both competition generally and competition specifically
                                                                           from other social housing associations, but at the same
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal                    time is supported by public funds and is subject to special
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the                     State controls?
       case of the Greek State against Loukas Vlachos
                                                                      2.   Is a national procurement law which permits contracting
                        (Case C-80/02)                                     authorities to exclude tenderers, without giving any
                                                                           reasons, from procurement procedures in respect of
                                                                           works contracts below the Community law threshold
                       (2002/C 144/22)                                     and within a minimal amount of up to, for example,
                                                                           EUR 10 000, compatible with Community law?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court              (1) OJ L 199 1993, p. 54.
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
Greek State against Loukas Vlachos on the following questions:


title: Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Existing aid regime — Tax regime for coordination centres established in Belgium — Application by an association — Admissibility — Commission Decision that the regime does not constitute aid — Change in the Commission's appraisal — Article 87(1) EC — Protection of legitimate expectations — General principle of equal treatment)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/1

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-182/03 (1) and C-217/03) (2)

   (State aid - Existing aid regime - Tax regime for coordination centres established in Belgium - Application by an association - Admissibility - Commission Decision that the regime does not constitute aid - Change in the Commission's appraisal - Article 87(1) EC - Protection of legitimate expectations - General principle of equal treatment)
   (2006/C 212/01)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially by A. Snoecx, and subsequently by E. Dominkovits, Agents, assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Wouters and P. Kelley, avocats) (Case C-182/03)
   Forum 187 ASBL: (represented by: A. Sutton and J. Killick, Barristers) (Case C-217/03)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet, R. Lyal, and V. Di Bucci, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities C(2003) final of 17 February 2003 concerning the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in favour of coordination centres established in Belgium inasmuch as it does not authorise the renewal of current authorisations of centres
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/757/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures for those coordination centres with an application for renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on which the contested decision was notified or with an authorisation which expired at the same time as or shortly after the notification of the decision;

               2.

               Rejects the application of Forum 187 ASBL as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs in Case C-182/03 and half of the costs of Forum 187 ASBL in Case C-217/03;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs in Cases C-182/03 R and C-217/03 R.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.06.2003.

      (2)  (T-276/02 – OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002).


title: Case T-551/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission (State aid — Subsidy for the takeover of a thermoelectric power plant and conversion thereof into a biofuel power plant — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application ratione temporis of the guidelines on national regional aid — Legitimate expectations — Incentive effect)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Fri-El Acerra v Commission
   (Case T-551/10) (1)

   (State aid - Subsidy for the takeover of a thermoelectric power plant and conversion thereof into a biofuel power plant - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application ratione temporis of the guidelines on national regional aid - Legitimate expectations - Incentive effect)
   2013/C 313/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Fri-El Acerra Srl (Acerra, Italy) (represented by: M. Todino and P. Fattori, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and P. Manzini, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/110/EU of 15 September 2010 on State aid C 8/09 (ex N 357/08) which Italy intends to grant to Fri-El Acerra Srl (OJ 2011 L 46, p. 28).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fri-El Acerra Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-263/01 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99 between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.9.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/13
Action brought on 4 July 2001 by the European Parlia-                    —     Failure by the Council to fulfil its duty of sincere
     ment against the Council of the European Union                            cooperation, as guaranteed by Article 10 EC: the Council
                                                                               adopted an implementing act before the relevant basic
                                                                               act had been adopted by the competent institutions.
                          (Case C-260/01)                                      When the Council adopted its decision, that is to say, on
                                                                               19 March 2001, the legislative procedure leading to the
                          (2001/C 245/23)                                      adoption of the act provided for in Article 255(2) EC was
                                                                               already at a very advanced stage. The Council makes no
                                                                               mention in the contested decision of any urgent reasons
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        justifying its approach. Nor did it ever indicate to the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   Parliament any urgency in connection with the adoption
ties on 4 July 2001 by the European Parliament, represented                    of its security regulation.
by R. Passos and A. Caiola, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                               —     Breach of the principle of institutional balance.
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
—     annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Council Decision
      2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s
      security regulations.                                              Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against
                                                                         the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
—     Infringement of the EC Treaty, and in particiular
      Article 255 thereof: it is clear on reading Articles 255 EC                                (Case C-263/01 P)
      and 207 EC that the act of the Council mentioned in
      Article 207 must be consistent with the general principles                                  (2001/C 245/24)
      and limits laid down in the basic act referred to in
      Article 255(2) EC. It is of fundamental importance that
      the heirarchical order of these provisions is complied             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by
      with in full by the Parliament, the Council and the                the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      Commission if acts adopted jointly pursuant to                     European Comunities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
      Article 255(2) EC are to be effective. The act pursuant to         between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the
      the codecision procedure must be adopted first. Only               European Communities was brought before the Court of
      then will the three institutions be in a position to lay           Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2001 by Carla
      down their own specific provisions governing the public’s          Giulietti, represented by S. Diana, with an address for service
      right of access to their documents. The basic act in               in Brussels.
      question, namely Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the
      European Parliament and the Council regarding public
      access to European Parliament, Council and Commission              The appellant claims that the Court should:
      documents, was adopted on 30 May 2001. Whilst the
      European Parliament and the Commission followed the                —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      order prescribed by Article 255 EC, the Council, in                      2 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99;
      infringement thereof, did not, and on 19 March 2001
      adopted Decision 2001/264.                                         —     order the European Commission to pay the cost.
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements: it is clear
      from the express purpose and content of Decision                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      2001/264/EC that it deals with matters going beyond the
      internal operations of the Council. It has in fact created         —     Infringement of the rights of the defence:
      legal obligations on the part of the Member States and
      Community satellite organisations. In order to do that,
      the Council ought not to have availed itself of the                      The appellant was only informed at the end of the written
      provisions of Article 207(3) EC and Article 24 of Council                procedure before the Court of First Instance as to how
      Decision 2000/396/EC of 5 June 2000, but should                          the group of 250 candidates retained for the tests was
      instead have had recourse to a different legal basis                     broken down as between the two spheres of activity
      allowing, in any event, for the initiative of the Com-                   covered by the competition. She was not informed of
      mission and the involvement of the European Parliament                   how many candidates had initially chosen each sphere of
      in the legislative procedure, such as Article 255 EC and/or              activity. The appellant was thus unable to prove inequality
      Article 308 EC. By its actions, the Council has thwarted a               of treatment between candidates on the part of the
      prerogative power of the European Parliament.                            selection board.
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
—    Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     The Court of First Instance failed to draw all the logical         (a)   Declare that,
     consequences from the selection board’s decision to
     delete certain questions and to take no account of the                   —     by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary so
     answers given to them.                                                         that the quality of bathing water conformed to the
                                                                                values limits set down in Article 3 of the directive;
                                                                              —     by failing to take samples at the minimum frequency
                                                                                laid down in the annex to the directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de                        —     by failing to identify all the inshore bathing areas in
Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of                              Portugal,
28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie
civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie
       Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec                             the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Directive 76/160/EEC (1) in particular as provided
                                                                              for in Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 3, the
                       (Case C-265/01)                                        annex to the directive and with Article 1(2) and those
                                                                              provided for in Article 6(1) and (2);
                       (2001/C 245/25)
                                                                        (b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Dinan of 28 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comite Region pêches               Pleas in law and main arguments
maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc
Kermarrec on the following questions:
                                                                        Although a derogation was granted under Article 395 of and
—    Can scallops caught from vessels registered in France (at          Point II-3 of Annex XXXVI to the Act of Accession of Spain
     Saint-Brieuc and Saint-Malo) in the waters of Jersey (the          and Portugal to the European Economic Community until
     Minkies) under licence issued by the Jersey authorities            31 December 1992, the level of non-conformity with the
     authorising fishing by diving be regarded as imported              mandatory values set down in the directive was, for the 2000
     products, in spite of the French legislation which applies         bathing season, 7.8 % for coastal bathing areas and 31 % for
     to fish catches the law of the flag of the fishing vessel?         inland bathing areas, which was even a decrease in conformity
                                                                        by comparison with the 1999 season.
—    Is the validity of the Order of 19 March 1980, which
     prohibits the unloading of scallops during their close
     season, affected by the provisions of the Treaty of
                                                                        Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have still not identified
     Maastricht, which prohibit measures having an effect
                                                                        all the inland bathing areas. There is a discrepancy between
     equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports?
                                                                        the number of inland bathing areas identified (26) and the
                                                                        number of ‘riverside beaches’, as described by the Portuguese
                                                                        authorities, eligible for Community funds (91).
                                                                        Although there has been 100 % sampling in Portugal in both
Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission                        coastal bathing areas and inshore bathing areas, that percentage
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      is only in respect of the bathing areas which have been
                           Republic                                     identified. Thus, by failing to comply with the minimum
                                                                        frequency of sampling operations because an insufficient
                                                                        number of inshore bathing areas have been identified, the
                       (Case C-272/01)                                  Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                        under Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.
                       (2001/C 245/26)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            (1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July                 the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Teresa Figueira and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.


title: Case C-442/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala de lo Social, by order of that court of 27 October 2000 in the case of Ángel Rodríguez Caballero against Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

text:
27.1.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 28/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                       Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala de lo
                                                                       Social, by order of that court of 27 October 2000 in the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       case of Ángel Rodrı́guez Caballero against Fondo de
advanced in Case C-407/00 (2); the transposition period expired
                                                                                Garantı́a Salarial (FOGASA)
on 16 February 1999.
                                                                                (Case C-442/00)
(1) OJ L 101 of 1.4.1998, p. 1.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/45)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior de
                                                                       Justicia, Sala de lo Social (High Court of Justice, Social
                                                                       Chamber), Castilla-La Mancha, Spain, of 27 October 2000,
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a
Action brought on 29 November 2000 by the Com-                         preliminary ruling in the case of Ángel Rodrı́guez Caballero
mission of the European Communities against the United                 against Fondo de Garantı́a Salarial (Wages Guarantee Fund,
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                    FOGASA) on the following questions:
                                                                       (a)   Should a concept of the kind at issue in the present
                           (Case C-441/00)                                   proceedings, namely remuneration which is payable by
                                                                             the employer to the employee as a result of the dismissal
                            (2001/C 28/44)                                   being unfair, be regarded as falling within those
                                                                             ‘employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment
                                                                             or employment relationships’ referred to in Article 1(1)
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                    of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                  on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
the European Communities on 29 November 2000 by the                          relating to the protection of employees in the event of
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                       the insolvency of their employer?
Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              (b) In the affirmative, is there an obligation under Article
Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.                                            1(1) of Directive 80/987 to determine employees’ claims
                                                                             by way of either a judicial decision or an administrative
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                  decision, and should such claims include all those
                                                                             employee claims upheld in the course of any other
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                 procedure recognised at law and judicially reviewable,
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  such as conciliation, a compulsory procedure conducted
      Council Directive 96/48/EC (1) of 23 July 1996 on the                  before a court, which must encourage the parties to
      interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail                 negotiate before commencing any legal proceedings and
      system, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its                    approve the terms of any agreement, and may prevent an
      obligations under that Directive.                                      agreement being concluded if it considers that the terms
                                                                             of the agreement would seriously prejudice one of the
                                                                             parties or amount to a circumvention of the law or an
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                             abuse of process?
                                                                       (c)   In the event that post-dismissal remuneration agreed
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              upon in a court-supervised conciliation and approved by
                                                                             the court does fall within the scope of ‘employees’ claims’,
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which                may the national court responsible for giving judgment
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,                in the proceedings refrain from applying a provision of
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation                 national law which excludes the employee’s claim for
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                    such remuneration from the scope of matters for which
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 8 April 1999              the national state guarantee institution, the Fondo de
without the United Kingdom having enacted the provisions                     Garantia Salarial, is responsible and apply Article 1(1) of
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the                    the directive directly on the ground that it considers the
conclusions of the Commission.                                               provision to be clear, precise and unconditional?
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.                                         (1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 February 1996 in Case C-342/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Joan Gillespie and Others v. Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others (Equal treatment for men and women - Maternity pay)

text:
4 . S. 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 13 February 1996                                                       of 13 February 1996
 in Case C-342/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            in Joined Cases C-l 97/94 and C-252/94 ( references for a
 the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland ): Joan Gillespie and         preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
 Others v . Northern Health and Social Services Board and              Dax, and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper ):
                              Others ( 1 )                             Société Bautiaa v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux des Landes
  (Equal treatment for men and women — Maternity pay)                  and Société Française Maritime v. Directeur des Services
                                                                                Fiscaux du Finistère (')
                           ( 96/C 133 /04 )
                                                                       (Article 7 (1) ofDirective 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on
                                                                       the raising of capital — Capital duty — Mergers between
                                                                                companies — Exemption)
                (Language of tbe case: English)                                                    ( 96/C 133/05 )
In Case C-342/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal in Northern                                  (Language of the case: French)
Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Joan Gillespie and Others and
Northern Health and Social Services Board, Department of
Health and Social Services, Eastern Health and Social
Services Board and Southern Health and Social Services                 (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
Board on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                     published in the European Court Reports)
Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
women ( OJ No L 45 , 1975 , p . 19 ) and Council Directive
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                 In Joined Cases C- 1 97/94 and C-252/94 : references to the
the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de
regards access to employment, vocational training and                  Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Dax ( France ), and the
promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 1976 ,                Tribunal de Grande Instance Quimper ( France ), for a
p . 40 ), the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ,            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before those
                                                                       courts between Société Bautiaa and Directeur des Services
President, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur ), ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ,            Fiscaux des Landes and between Société Française Maritime
F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G.               and Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Finistère, on the
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray and P. Jann, Judges;                 interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
P. Léger, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for            1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ,
the Registrar, has given a judgment in which it rules :                English Special Edition 1 969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by
                                                                       Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the
                                                                       field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty
                                                                       provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction
The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the             operations by Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Directive concerning
EC Treaty and set out in detail in Council Directive                   indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ No L 103 , 1973 ,
75/1 1 7/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of               p . 13 ), by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of           fixing common rates of capital duty ( OJ No L 103 , 1973 ,
the principle of equal pay for men and women neither                   p . 15 ), by Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November
requires that women should continue to receive full pay                1974 amending Article 5 ( 2 ) of Directive 1135/EEC ( OJ No
during maternity leave, nor lays down specific criteria for            L 303 , 1974 , p . 9 ), and by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
determining the amount of benefit payable to them during               10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ) — the Court,
that period, provided that the amount is not set so low as to          composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
jeopardize the purpose of maternity leave. Elowever, to the            C. N. Kakouris, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch , Presidents of
extent that it is calculated on the basis of pay received by a         Chambers, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
woman before the commencement of maternity leave, the                  Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,
amount of benefit must include pay rises awarded between               H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevôn, Judges;
the beginning of the period covered by reference pay and the           G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
end of maternity leave, as from the date on which they take            Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
effect.                                                                13 February 1996 in which it rules :
C ) OJ No C 215 , 10 . 8 . 1 993 .
                                                                      Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                       1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                      amended, with effect from 1 January 1976, by Council
                                                                       Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates


title: Case T-261/99: Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon against the European Parliament

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 6/35
Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon                         Action brought on 29 October 1999 by Algemene service-
               against the European Parliament                          en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-261/99)
                                                                                (Case T-265/99)
                           (2000/C 6/63)                                                           (2000/C 6/64)
                  (Language of the Case: French)                                            (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon, resident in Hagen,                    European Communities on 29 October 1999 by Algemene
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise             service- en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort B.V., of
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by J.P.A. Greuters, of the
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de          Arnhem Bar.
Gestion Fiduciaire SGF, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
— annul the decision of the European Parliament rejecting                    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    his application for the post, at the grade of LA 3, of Deputy            Germany, or at least declare it partially void in so far as the
    Head of the French Translation Division;                                 applicant is classified in the ‘dealer-owned/dealer-operated’
                                                                             category with a clause relating to a system of price controls;
— annul the decision of the European Parliament to appoint              (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
    another candidate to that post;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                        This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
                                                                        failure to comply with the obligation to provide a statement
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of reasons, on account of an essentially incorrect determination
                                                                        of the facts.
In support of his action, the applicant submits that the
European Parliament:                                                    (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— failed to comply with the vacancy notice, Article 45 of the
    Staff Regulations and the principles of career progression
    and of equal treatment, by appointing a candidate who did
    not possess all the qualifications required by the vacancy
    notice;
                                                                        Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
                                                                        Chr. Kerres B.V. against the Commission of the European
— manifestly erred in its assessment in considering that the
                                                                                Communities
    two candidates for the vacant post were of equivalent
    merit; and
                                                                                (Case T-263/99)
— infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations by not provid-
    ing the applicant with the information to enable him to                                        (2000/C 6/65)
    examine the justification for the contested decision and in
    particular the reason why he was not appointed to the
    post which he had already occupied, to the very great                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
    satisfaction of his line management, on the occasions when
    the Head of Division was absent.                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
                                                                        Chr. Kerres B.V., of Kerkrade (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        W.C.G.J. Sterk, of the Heerlen Bar.


title: Case F-124/14: Action brought on 27 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/59

         Action brought on 27 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-124/14)
   (2015/C 007/76)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contract staff, in the light of the increase in working hours to 40 hours per week as a consequence of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the applicant’s salary statement for January 2014 and the statements for the subsequent months insofar as they do not provide for the additional monthly amount calculated in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the GIP No 1287 of 27 April 2005 and taking account of the increase in working hours;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Notice of open competitions

text:
C 182/18         EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  31.7.2002
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                            NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                        (2002/C 182/11)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities is publishing in the Official Journal of the European
         Communities C 182 A of 31 July 2002 the following open competitions:
         Italian edition
         CJ/LA/19 (Lawyer-linguists of Italian mother tongue)
         Dutch edition
         CJ/LA/20 (Lawyer-linguists of Dutch mother tongue)
         English edition
         CJ/LA/23 (Lawyer-linguists of English mother tongue)
         French edition
         CJ/LA/24 (Lawyer-linguists of French mother tongue)
         Spanish edition
         CJ/LA/25 (Lawyer-linguists of Spanish mother tongue)
         Portuguese edition
         CJ/LA/26 (Lawyer-linguists of Portuguese mother tongue)
         To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of the European
         Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
         The final date for receipt of applications is 30 September 2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-130/95: X v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Consideration of the candidates' comparative merits - Staff report - Delay in drawing it up - Action for annulment and for damages)

text:
No C 74/ 18             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 3 . 97
          Removal from the register of C-290/96 ( ')                              Removal from the register of C-3 14/94 (')
                               97/C 74/36 )                                                           ( 97/C 74/37)
                                                                         By order of 18 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 27 November 1996 the President of the Court                  of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                  removal from the register of Case C-3 14/94 ( reference for
removal from the register of Case C-290/96 : Commission                  a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia
of the European Communities v. Ireland.                                 del Pais Vasco ( Sala de lo Social )): Maria Luisa Alonso
                                                                        Bernardez ( widow of Edelmiro Nunez Santos ) v. Instituto
 (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                        la Seguridad Social .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 12 December 1996                                                      of 12 December 1996
in Case T-358/94: Compagnie Nationale Air France v.                     in Case T-130/95 : X v. Commission of the European
        Commission of the European Communities H                                                  Communities H
(State aid — Air transport — Airline company in a critical              (Officials   —     Promotion         —    Consideration of     the
                        financial situation)                            candidates ' comparative merits — Staff report — Delay in
                                                                          drawing it up — Action for annulment and for damages)
                             ( 97/C 74/38 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/39 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-358/94 : Compagnie Nationale Air France,
having its registered office in Paris, represented by                   In Case T-130/95 : X, an official of the Commission of the
Dominique Borde and Andre Moquet, of the Bars of Paris                  European Communities, represented by Carlo Revoldini,
and Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 of the Luxembourg Bar, 180 route de Longwy, with an
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the
against Commission of the European Communities                          latter, against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Ben Smulders and Ami Barav) — application for                 ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto dal Ferro ) —
annulment of Commission Decision 94/662/EC of 27 July                   application for annulment of the decision of the
1994 concerning the subscription by CDC-Participations                  Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4
to bonds issued by Air France ( OJ No L 258 , 6 . 10 . 1994,            under the 1994 promotion procedure and for damages —
p. 26 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,                the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
Extended Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner,                      B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briet and A. Potocki,
President, B. Vesterdorf,              C. W.       Bellamy, A.         Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio                      Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996, the
Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 12 December                 operative part of which is as follows:
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . The application is dismissed.
                                                                       2 . The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                               those of the applicant.
H OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                         (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Action brought on 24 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-96/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95         |_EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, acting as
                                                                      Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
Case C-79/95 ; the period prescribed for the transposition of
the Directive expired on 1 January 1993 .                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                            time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                            with Council Directive 89/666/EEC ( l ) of 21 December
                                                                            1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of
Action brought on 24 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                            branches opened in a Member State by certain types of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                            company governed by the law of another State and
                              Germany                                       Council Directive 89/667/EEC ( 2 ) of the same date on
                        ( Case C-96/95 )                                    single-member private limited-liability companies, the
                          ( 95/C 159/ 13 )                                  Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under the EC Treaty,
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      — declare, in the            alternative , that by failing to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         communicate to the Commission the texts of the
Communities on 24 March 1 995 by the Commission of the
                                                                            provisions of national law transposing Directives
European Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, a
                                                                            89/666/EEC and 89/667/EEC, pursuant to Article 16 of
member of the Commission's Legal Service, and Horstpeter                    Directive   89/666/EEC and Article        8 of Directive
Kreppel, a judge of the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court ) on
                                                                            89/667/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                            its obligations under the EC Treaty,
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                   — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     time limit the legal and administrative provisions               in Case C-79/95 ; the time limit prescribed by the two
     necessary to implement Council Directive 90/365/EEC              Directives expired on 1 January 1992 .
     of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees
     and self-employed persons who have ceased their                  f 1 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 36 .
     occupational activity i 1 ) and Council Directive                ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 40 .
     90/364/EEC of 28 June 1 990 on the right of residence ( 2 )
     or, in the alternative, by failing to communicate such
     provisions promptly to the Commission, the Federal
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the EC Treaty;                                             Action brought on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                                 Germany
     costs .
                                                                                ( Case C-101/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                brought before the Court of Justice of the European
30 June 1992 .                                                        Communities on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
(M OJ No L 180 , 13 . 7. 1990 , p . 28 .
                                                                      Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
(2 ) OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990, p . 26 .                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of                        time limit the measures necessary to comply with
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on
                              Belgium                                       the protection of animals during transport and
                        ( Case C-98/95 )                                    amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91 /496/EEC ( J ),
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                          ( 95/C 159/14 )                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
                                                                            Directive;
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
27 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                             costs .


title: Case T-334/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2016 by FN, FP, and FQ against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April 2016 in Case F-41/15 DISS II FN and Others v CEPOL

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/45

         Appeal brought on 20 June 2016 by FN, FP, and FQ against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April 2016 in Case F-41/15 DISS II FN and Others v CEPOL
   (Case T-334/16 P)
   (2016/C 305/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: FN (Budapest, Hungary), FP (Bratislava, Slovakia), FQ (Les Fonts Benitachell, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Police College (CEPOL)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April [2016] in Case F-41/15 DISS II, FN e.a. v CEPOL, and as a consequence,

               —

               annul the CEPOL decision no 17/2014/DIR dated 23 May 2014, providing for the relocation of CEPOL in Budapest, Hungary, as from 1st October 2014 and informing the appellants that ‘Non compliance with this instruction will be considered as resignation with the effect of 30 September 2014’,

               —

               annul the CEPOL decisions dated 28 November 2014, rejecting the appellants’ complaints lodged between 8 and 21 August 2014, against the decision of 23 May 2014,

               —

               order CEPOL to compensate the material and moral prejudices suffered by the appellants,

               —

               order CEPOL to bear the costs of the appellants related to the present appeal and in case F-41/15 DISS II.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error in law in the application of article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law in the interpretation of the contractual provisions binding the appellants and CEPOL and of the appellants’ acquired rights, a distortion of the facts, a violation of the duty duty to state reasons, a violation of the principle of equal treatment, and an error in law in the application of the principle of good administration and due care.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error in law in the appreciation of the appellants’ claims for damages.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Case C-500/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Market for telecommunications services — Tariff rebalancing — Access to the local loop — Directive 90/388/EEC — Article 4(c))

text:
C 47/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.2.2004
            prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products      Heerlen, on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC
            which are not subject to prescription in the Member State        Treaty (subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now,
            concerned.                                                       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of the
                                                                             EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed
      (c)   Questions 1(a) and 1(b) do not need to be assessed               by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of the EC
            differently where medicinal products are imported into a         Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) and
            Member State in which they are authorised, having been           the provisions of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
            previously obtained by a pharmacy in another Member              1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) and
            State from a wholesaler in the importing Member State.           Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the
                                                                             implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,
2.    Article 88(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European                  p. 5), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the                acting as the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
      Community code relating to medicinal products for human use            (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
      precludes a national prohibition on advertising the sale by mail       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      order of medicinal products which may be supplied only in              has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has
      pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as the                  ruled:
      prohibition laid down in Paragraph 8(1) of the Heilmittelwer-
      begesetz (Law on the advertising of medicinal products), in so
      far as the prohibition covers medicinal products which are not         Community law precludes national legislation concerning the assess-
      subject to prescription.                                               ment of tax due on the inheritance of immovable property situated in
                                                                             the Member State concerned according to which, in order to assess
                                                                             the property’s value, the fact that the person holding legal title was
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                                   under an unconditional obligation to transfer it to another person
                                                                             who has financial ownership of that property may be taken into
                                                                             account if, at the time of his death, the former resided in that Member
                                                                             State, but may not be taken into account if he resided in another
                                                                             Member State.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 11 December 2003
in Case C-364/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch): The heirs of
H. Barbier v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulier-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        en/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty
(subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now,
                                                                                of 7 January 2004
after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of
the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty,
repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of                   in Case C-500/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and                                           ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
18 EC) — Directives 88/361/EEC and 90/364/EEC —
Inheritance tax — Requirement of cross-border economic
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Market
activity — Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of
                                                                             for telecommunications services — Tariff rebalancing —
                    Member State of residence)
                                                                             Access to the local loop — Directive 90/388/EEC —
                                                                                Article 4(c))
                            (2004/C 47/09)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                        (2004/C 47/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-364/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between the heirs of H. Barbier and Inspecteur van                     In Case C-500/01, Commission of the European Communities
de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te                 (Agent: S. Rating) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 47/7
Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by failing to                 by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                    provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/84/EC of
necessary to comply with Article 4(c) of Commission Directive                the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets                     1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10) as                    of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), or, at the very
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                         least, by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Kingdom of Spain has failed                  those measures, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
to fulfil its obligations under those directives and the EC                  obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting              composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward                        Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
(Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                   Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January              has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it:
2004, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(c)              98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on                        20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based
      competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as               on, or consisting of, conditional access, the Kingdom of Spain
      amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
      1996, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                               of 7 January 2004
                         of 7 January 2004                                   in Case C-60/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Landesgericht Eisenstadt): X (1)
in Case C-58/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               (Counterfeit and pirated goods — No criminal penalty for
                                                                             the transit of counterfeit goods — Compatibility with
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
98/84/EC — Information society — Radio broadcasting —
Services based on conditional access — Services consisting                                                (2004/C 47/12)
of conditional access — Protected services — Legal protection
            — Devices giving unauthorised access)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                            (2004/C 47/11)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-60/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                   in the European Court Reports)                            by the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                             ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against X,
                                                                             on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94
                                                                             of 22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the
In Case C-58/02, Commission of the European Communities                      entry into the Community and the export and re-export
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Shotter v Kingdom of Spain                 from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual
(Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that,              property rights (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8), as amended by Council


title: Case C-16/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2007 by Marguerite Chetcuti against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04: Chetcuti v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/13

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2007 by Marguerite Chetcuti against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04: Chetcuti v Commission
   (Case C-16/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Marguerite Chetcuti (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)

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

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2006 in Case T-357/04 Chetcuti v Commission;

               —

               grant the form of order sought by the appellant before the Court of First Instance and therefore:

                           —

                           annul the decision of the competition selection board of 22 June 2004 rejecting, on the basis of point III of competition notice COM/PA/04 of 6 April 2004, the appellant's candidature;

                           —

                           annul the subsequent acts of the competition procedure, and in particular the list adopted by the selection board of candidates meeting the conditions fixed by the notice of competition, the Commission decision determining on that basis the number of posts to be filled, the list of suitable candidates adopted by the selection board on completion of its task, and the appointment decisions taken by the appointing authority on that basis;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward a single plea in law in support of her appeal, alleging infringement by the Court of First Instance of the concept of internal competition within the meaning of Articles 4 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations in the version in force at the time of publication of the competition notice, of the objective assigned to recruitment by Article 27 and the first paragraph of Article 4 of those regulations, and of the principle of equal treatment or, at the very least, of the obligation to state reasons.
   In that plea, the appellant asserts, in essence, that it is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance that the expression ‘competition internal to the institution ’concerns all the persons in the service of the institution because of a connection under public law, including auxiliary staff, and that the Court of First Instance misconstrued that case-law and the meaning of the expression ‘internal competition ’by focusing on the main purpose of the competition, defined on the basis of subjective qualifications, rather than on its intrinsic nature, defined on the basis of objective conditions of admission to the competition stipulated in the competition notice.
   The appellant claims next that, whilst it cannot be denied that the appointing authority has wide discretion when specifying in the competition notice the conditions of admissibility to that competition, that discretion must always be exercised according to the requirements of the posts to be filled and the interest of the service, so that the argument that auxiliary staff can be excluded on the basis that, unlike officials and temporary staff, they have not had to prove, at the time of their initial recruitment, that they are of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity cannot be accepted. Proof of such qualities must be apparent simply from success in the pre-selection tests and selection tests provided for by the competition notice. The same is moreover true as regards proof of aptitude to carry out the tasks of the posts to be filled.
   In the alternative, the appellant claims lastly that the judgment under appeal is inadequately reasoned in so far as the Court of First Instance did not respond to its argument that the competition notice contains an internal contradiction because that notice appears to exclude the candidatures of auxiliary staff, but to admit for the calculation of professional experience that acquired as a member of the auxiliary staff in certain function groups.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-478/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords in Celtec Ltd v John Astley and Others (Directive 77/187/EEC — Article 3(1) — Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Transferor's rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment or from an employment relationship existing on the date of a transfer — Meaning of ‘date of a transfer’)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-478/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords in Celtec Ltd v John Astley and Others (1)

   (Directive 77/187/EEC - Article 3(1) - Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Transferor's rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment or from an employment relationship existing on the date of a transfer - Meaning of ‘date of a transfer’)
   (2005/C 182/22)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-478/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the House of Lords (United Kingdom), made by decision of 10 November 2003, received at the Court on 17 November 2003, in the proceedings between Celtec Ltd and John Astley and Others — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the date of a transfer within the meaning of that provision is the date on which responsibility as employer for carrying on the business of the unit transferred moves from the transferor to the transferee. That date is a particular point in time which cannot be postponed to another date at the will of the transferor or transferee.

               2.

               For the purposes of applying that provision, contracts of employment or employment relationships existing on the date of the transfer within the meaning stated in paragraph 1 of the operative part between the transferor and the workers assigned to the undertaking transferred are deemed to be handed over, on that date, from the transferor to the transferee, regardless of what has been agreed between the parties in that respect.

      (1)  OJ C 21of 24.01.2004.


title: Case C-148/01: Action brought on 4 April 2001 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

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


title: Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-125/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 137/ 15
the EC Treaty in so far as it penalizes in general the                            Removal from the register of Case C-4 15/92 ( )
importation by private individuals of medicaments or, as in                                            ( 95/C 137/33 )
this case , spectacles from other Member States ?
                                                                           By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-415/92 : Italian Republic
                                                                           v. Commission of the European Communities .
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Commission of the
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                           ( t ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 .
                              ( Case C-125/95 )
                                ( 95/C 137/32 )
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice on 11 April 1995 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Sergio de Carvalho, Legal                         Removal from the register of Case C-397/93 ( )
Advisers , acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                             ( 95/C 137/34 )
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis , of its Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           By order of 16 February 1995 the President of the Court of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-397/93 ( reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
     period all the measures necessary to implement in                     Genova ): Voltri Terminal Europa SpA v. Giorgio Donati
     full :                                                                and Others .
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC (') of 28 January 1991                 (>) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
          concerning the animal health conditions governing
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
          products,
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
           and the placing on the market of live bivalve
           molluscs ,                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-52/94 ( ! )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/35 )
     — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC ( i ) of 22 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
          and the placing on the market of fishery products ,              By order of 16 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
           and                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-52/94 : Italian Republic
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC ( 4 ) of 16 June 1992                   v. Commission of the European Communities .
           laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels in           (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
           accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive
           91 /493 /EEC ,
— the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its
     obligations under the Treaty,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-89/94 (')
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                     ( 95/C 137/36 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-79/95 . The period prescribed for transposing the                   By order of 8 March 1995 the President of the Court of
Directives expired on 1 January 1993 .                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-89/94 : Commission of the
(')  OJ  No    L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                           European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(2)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(;)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .                            (M OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ  No    L 187, 7. 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .


title: Case C-284/08: Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/32

         Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-284/08)
   (2008/C 223/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by Messrs W. Roels and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive in its territory of Gibraltar;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 12 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 149, p. 22.