title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2000 in Case C-207/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern): Silke-Karin Mahlburg v land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment — Refusal to employ a pregnant woman)

text:
C 102/4                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
Graf and Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH — on the interpret-                    President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
ation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 Judges, Advocate General; A. Saggio, Registrar; H. von Hol-
Article 39 EC) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez                     stein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón,                   2000, in which it has ruled:
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,                     Article 2(1) and (3) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General:                     1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
N. Fennelly; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                  men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 January 2000,                 and promotion, and working conditions precludes a refusal to appoint
in which it has ruled:                                                      a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period on the ground
                                                                            that a statutory prohibition on employment attaching to the condition
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)           of pregnancy prevents her from being employed in that post from the
does not preclude national provisions which deny a worker entitlement       outset and for the duration of the pregnancy.
to compensation on termination of employment if he terminates his
contract of employment himself in order to take up employment in
another Member State, when those provisions grant him entitlement           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
to such compensation if the contract ends without the termination
being at his own initiative or attributable to him.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 February 2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            in Case C-293/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción
                                                                            de Oviedo): Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los
                        of 3 February 2000                                  Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda) v Hostelerı́a Asturiana
                                                                                SA (Hoasa) (1)
in Case C-207/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern):                          (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting and cable retrans-
Silke-Karin Mahlburg v land Mecklenburg-Vorpom-                                                            mission)
                               mern (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/06)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employ-
        ment — Refusal to employ a pregnant woman)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2000/C 102/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-293/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Juzgado de Primera
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Instancia e Instrucción de Oviedo, Spain, for a preliminary
                   in the European Court Reports)                           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisu-
In Case C-207/98, reference to the Court under Article 177 of               ales (Egeda) and Hosteleria Asturiana SA (Hoasa) — on the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landesarbeitsgericht              interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                   27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules
in the proceedings pending before that court between Silke-Ka-              concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable
rin Mahlburg and land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — on the                       to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993
interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC              L 248, p. 15) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                      Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working                  Pergola, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),               has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, in which it has
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting for the                    ruled:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case C-147/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose a directive)

text:
No C 137/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
entered into by the branch in the name of its parent body are                input VAT paid, even if the ultimate purpose of the
to be performed in the Contracting State in which the                        transaction is the carrying out of a taxable transaction.
branch is established.
                                                                             (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
(M OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                            ( 2 ) OJ No 71 , 14 . 4 . 1967, p . 1301 .
( z ) OJ No L 229 , 7 . 10 . 1992 , p . 32 .                                 (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
(-') O J No L 304 , 30 . 1 0 . 1 978 , p. 1 and — the amended version —
      P - 77.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case        C-147/94 : Commission of the            European
                             ( Fifth Chamber )                                            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain ( 1 )
                             of 6 April 1995                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
in Case C-4/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                       to transpose a directive)
Queen 's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice ): BLP                                                ( 95/C 137/12 )
   Group pic v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (')
 ( Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 2 ofDirective
67/22 7/EEC and Article 17(2) ofDirective 77/388/EEC —
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Deduction of input tax on goods or services relating to
                         exempt transactions)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                               ( 95/C 137/ 11 )                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-147/94 : Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             Communities ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and F. Enrique
                                                                             Gonzalez Diaz ) against the Kingdom of Spain (Agents :
In Case C-4/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) —
the EC Treaty from the Queen 's Bench Division of the High                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 bring into force the laws , regulations or administrative
pending before that court between BLP Group pic and                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Commissioners         of      Customs        and  Excise   —   on    the     90/61 8/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending, particularly as
interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive                   regards motor vehicle liability insurance, Directive
                                                                             73/239/EEC and Directive 88 /357/EEC which concern the
67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonization of
legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes ( 2 )                 coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
and Article 17 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council Directive                          provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                        assurance (2 ) and by not informing the Commission thereof,
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                       the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of                          under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
assessment ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of                  composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) J. L. Murray
Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and D. A. O. Edward , Judges; C. O.                   and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Lenz , Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which it                6 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
rules :
                                                                             1 . by failing to adopt and bring into force within the
                                                                                prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative
Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of                             provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
11 April 1967 on the harmonization of legislation of                               90/618/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending,
Member States concerning turnover taxes and Article 17 of                          particularly as regards motor vehicle liability insurance,
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on                           Directive    73 /239/EEC        and Directive 88/357/EEC
the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                        which concern the coordination oflaws, regulations and
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                              administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
uniform basis ofassessment, must be interpreted as meaning                         other than life assurance, the Kingdom of Spain has
that, except in the cases expressly provided for by those                          failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Directives, where a taxable person supplies services to
another taxable person who uses them for an exempt
transaction, the latter person is not entitled to deduct the                 2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/7
3 . the Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.                    5 . Export refund of                         DM 518 181,00,
                                                                             which the German authorities are said to be obliged to
( ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .                                             recover because the exports of beef in the years 1986/87
( 2 ) OJ No L 330 , 29 . 11 . 1990 , p . 44 .                                 on which it was based went not to South Africa but in
                                                                              fact to Zimbabwe .
                                                                         6 . Special premium for beef producers of
                                                                                DM 3 118 563,54 .
Action brought on 2 March 1995 by the Federal Republic of
Germany against the Commission of the European                           On point 1
                             Communities
                                                                         The reason given by the Commission for imposing the
                          ( Case C-54/95 )                               penalty, namely that the German customs authorities
                            ( 95/C 137/13 )                              delayed in transposing the judgment of the Court of Justice
                                                                         of 22 June 1993 in Case C-54/91 ( 2 ), is not justified : the new
An action against the Commission of the European                         administrative procedure, not objected to by the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the               Commission, has in fact been applied since 19 November
 European Communities on 2 March 1995 by the Federal                     1993 .
 Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
 Ministerialrat, and Gereon Thiele, of the Federal Ministry of           Moreover, there is no legal basis for a penalty. The
 Economic Affairs, 53107 Bonn, Germany .                                 Commission does not have the authority independently to
                                                                         fix such penalty payments or lump sums — which is what
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             the 'penalty' at issue here purports to be — without
                                                                         complying with a single one of the conditions of
 1.    annul Commission Decision 94/ 871 /EC of 21 December              Article 171 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty .
       1994 (') on the clearance of the accounts presented by
       the Member States in respect of the expenditure for               On point 2
       1991 of the European Agricultural Guidance and
       Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ) Guarantee Section,                       The entitlement to an export refund is conditional on the
       document SG ( 94 ) D/ 19706 of 29 December 1994                   existence of an export. It is established that cattle left the
       ( COM ( 94 ) 3308 final ), in so far as it refuses to             territory of the Community and were released into free
       recognize the sum of DM 116 633 582,10 ;                          circulation in Poland . Whether those exports might perhaps
                                                                         not have been effected if only the refund rate for cattle for
 2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .                              slaughter had been applicable, is of no relevance for the
                                                                         definition of an export for the purpose of the rules on
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     refunds . Since the cattle exported corresponded to the
                                                                         definition of breeding animals — under German law, in the
 The application contests the charging of the following                   absence of Community rules, in accordance with
 amounts :
                                                                          Article 6 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/504/EEC — the Federal
                                                                          Republic of Germany was obliged to pay the export refund
  1 . Penalty of                                DM 1 013 451,17           for animals for breeding.
       equivalent to 10% of a sum charged to the Federal
       Republic of 5 % of the production refunds for the use of           The Commission is wrong to criticise the German
       starch and sugar on the ground of breaches of provisions           Government on the ground that the German customs
       of Regulations ( EEC ) No 2169/86 and ( EEC )                      authorities did not react quickly enough to indications of
       No 1729/78 respectively.                                           possible abuses . The German authorities had long since
                                                                          taken measures when the Commission adopted Community
  2 . Export refunds of                        DM 54 275 090,69
                                                                          rules in March ( Regulation ( EEC ) No 811/92 ) and August
       relating to exports of livestock to Poland as breeding             1992 ( Regulation ( EEC ) No 2342/92 ).
       animals of the bovine species .
  3 . Part of claims to reimbursement against the firm Imex               On point 3
       on the ground of export benefits obtained by deception,
        penalty for failure to comply with the time limit                 The German investigating authorities did not infringe any
        prescribed for stating a position, amounting to                   legal obligation which could give rise to a financial charge,
                                              DM 56 692 508,70 .          and in particular not their obligation under Article 5 of the
                                                                          EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC )
  4 . Export refund of                             DM 997 814,00          No 729/70 to recover sums wrongly paid . The Commission
        allowed to the firm Siidfleisch for exports of beef, in           has no power to instruct a Member State as to which of
        respect of which evidence of arrival in the United Arab           several possible investigative measures it must carry out.
        Emirates — which turned out to be false — was
        originally produced , and after an extension of the time          The fault of an auxiliary customs officer in their
        limit had been granted by the German authorities,                 employment must indeed be imputed to the German
        evidence of the arrival of the shipment in Lebanon was            customs authorities, but charging is recognized only to the
        produced .                                                        extent of the contravention found by the German criminal


title: Case C-551/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italia) lodged on 25 October 2013 — SETAR — v Comune di Quartu S. Elena

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italia) lodged on 25 October 2013 — SETAR — v Comune di Quartu S. Elena
   (Case C-551/13)
   2013/C 377/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SETAR — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale

      Opposing party: Comune di Quartu S. Elena

      Question referred

   Does Community law preclude the rules laid down in Article 188 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and Decree of the Minister for the Environment of 17 December 2009, under which the entry into force of the legislation transposing Directive 2008/98/EC (1) into national law is to be delayed pending the adoption of a ministerial decree laying down the related technical rules and specifying the time-limits within which that implementing legislation is to enter into force?

      (1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3).


title: Order of the Court of 5 March 1999 in Case C-154/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - No indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available)

text:
5.6.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 160/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       2. Guérin Automobiles EURL is ordered to pay the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
                         of 5 March 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
in Case C-153/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Time-limit for the bringing proceedings — No
indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (1999/C 160/01)
                                                                                of 5 March 1999
                    (Language of the case: French)                           in Case C-154/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — No
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/02)
In Case C-153/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL, a company in
judicial liquidation, established at Alençon (France), acting
in the person of Xavier Lemée, liquidator, represented by                                        (Language of the case: French)
Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
Rue Béatrix de Bourbon — appeal against the order of the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second                                     in the European Court Reports)
Chamber) of 13 February 1998 in Case T-275/97 Guérin
Automobiles v. Commission 1998 ECR II-253, seeking to
have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings                In Case C-154/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL, a company in
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    judicial liquidation, established at Alençon (France), acting
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier) — the Court, composed                     in the person of Xavier Lemée, liquidator, represented by
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. P.             Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of D.A.O. Edward,              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                Rue Béatrix de Bourbon — appeal against the order of the
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
an order on 5 March 1999, the operative part of which is as                  Chamber) of 13 February 1998 in Case T-276/97 Guérin
follows:                                                                     Automobiles v. Commission 1998 ECR II-261, seeking to
                                                                             have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                                                                             being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                  Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier) — the Court, composed
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/2                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.6.1999
of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn,             Action brought on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of
J. P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,        the European Communities against the Federal Republic
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,                                             of Germany
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges: G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 March                                       (Case C-71/99)
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                     (1999/C 160/04)
2. Guérin Automobiles EURL is ordered to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 258, 15.8.1998.                                                Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Advisor
                                                                        in the Legal Service of the European Commission and Paolo
                                                                        Stancanelli, a member of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz a member of the Legal
                                                                        Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirch-
                                                                        berg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 21 January
1999 in the case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
bofrost (1) Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co
KG v. bofrost (1) Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH
                              & Co KG                                   — declare that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil
                                                                            its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
                           (Case C-62/99)                                   21 May 1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                            and of wild flora and fauna by failing to transmit to the
                                                                            Commission a full list of the sites referred to in the first
                          (1999/C 160/03)                                   subparagraph of Article 4 (1) together with the information
                                                                            on each site set out in the second subparagraph of Article
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      4 (1), and
European Communities by an order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court), by order of that
court of 21 January 1999, which was received at the Court               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Registry on 22 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of bofrost (1) Josef
H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG v. bofrost (1)
Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG on the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
following questions:
(a) Is Article 11 (1) and (2) of Council Directive 94/45/EC of
     22 September 1994 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that            According to the Commission, the first subparagraph of
     the right to information laid down therein exists even             Article 4 (1) of the Directive requires the Member States to
     where it is not (yet) established whether or not there is a        propose in their lists sites which are most suitable for
     controlling undertaking within the meaning of Article 3 of         conservation of the relevant habitats and at the same time
     Directive 94/95/EC in a group of undertakings as defined           geographically representative of the national territory of each
     in Article 2 (1) (b) of Directive 94/45/EC?                        Member State as a whole. The Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                        therefore infringes Community law in proposing a list which
(b) If question (a) is answered in the affirmative:                     omits a whole series of habitat types. It further infringes
                                                                        Community law in not assuring geographical representativity
     Does the right to information in Article 11 (1) and (2) of         for the whole of the territory of the Federal Republic of
     Directive 94/45/EC also include the right of a works               Germany, for instance, because no sites for habitat types
     council to request from the undertaking concerned infor-           within Annex 1 or species within Annex 2 in the Federal
     mation which gives rise to the presumption referred to in          States of Brandenburg, Sachsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,
     Article 3 (2) of Directive 94/45/EC?                               Baden-Württemberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen are mentioned or
                                                                        because the lists hitherto provided are incomplete.
(c) Does Article 11 (1) and (2) of Directive 94/45/EC include
     the right of a works council to request documents from an
     undertaking to clarify and explain such information?               Under Article 4 (1) of the Directive, a complete list was to be
                                                                        transmitted by 10 June 1995. Even taking into account the
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                         fact that the formula which Article 4 (1) required to be used
                                                                        was not available at that time, the information could none the
                                                                        less have been entered soon after notification of the formula
                                                                        on 19 December 1996 and transmitted. But at the time of


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 1996 in Case C-331/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (VAT - Taxation of transportation of persons, round trips by sea and package tours)

text:
No C 197/8            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6 . 7 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          abovementioned regulation have been slightly infringed,
                       ( Fourth Chamber )                                    even where the consignee has not made any observations
                                                                             in that regard.
                         of 23 May 1996
in Case C-326/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             f 1 ) OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels ): A. Maas & Co.
NV v. Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en Landbouw,
    now the Belgisch Interventie en Restitutiebureau ( ] )
(Food aid — Security — Obligations of the successful
                  tenderer — Reference price)
                          ( 96/C 197/13 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: Dutcb)
                                                                                of 23 May 1996
                                                                       in Case C-331/94 : Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                          Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
         published in the European Court Reports)                      (VAT — Taxation of transportation ofpersons, round trips
                                                                                by sea and package tours)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/14 )
In Case C-326/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
( Court of First Instance ), Brussels for a preliminary ruling in                         (Language of the case: Greek)
the proceedings pending before that court between A. Maas
& Co . NV and Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en
Landbouw,        now the          Belgisch     Interventie- en         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Restitutiebureau on the interpretation of Commission                              published in the European Court Reports)
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1824/80 of 11 July 1980 opening an
invitation to tender for the mobilization of common wheat
                                                                       In Case C-331 /94 : Commission of the European
as food aid for the Republic of Benin ( OJ L 178 , 1980 , p . 5 )      Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic
— the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of C. N.                      Republic ( Agents: Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Anna
Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn                   Rokofyllou ) — application for a declaration that, by
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                exempting certain transport services from value added tax
Colomer,     Advocate-General;        D.    Louterman-Hubeau,          and by charging that tax on certain services supplied by tour
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            operators, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
on 23 May 1996 , the operative part of which is as                     obligations under Articles 2, 9 (2 ) ( b ) and 26 of the Sixth
follows :
                                                                       Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                       turnover taxes — common system of value added tax :
1 . Article 6 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                      uniform basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the
    No 1824/80 of 11 July 1980 opening an invitation to                Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composèd of D. A. O. Edward,
    tender for the mobilization of common wheat as food                President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur), P.
    aid for the Republic of Benin is to be interpreted as              Jann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    meaning that observance of the quality standards                   Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
    referred to in Article 7 of that regulation constitutes an         Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 May 1996, in which it:
    obligation which the successful tenderer must fulfil as
    regards the carrying out of the operations referred to in
    Article 6 (1 ) in order for the security to be released;           1 . declares that, by exempting from value added tax sea
                                                                             voyages in Greek-flagged vessels which do not put in at a
                                                                             foreign port as regards the part of the journey within
2 . Article S of Regulation (EEC) No 1824/80 is to be                        territorial waters, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
    interpreted as meaning that the successful tenderer                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 9 (2) (b) of the
    incurs liability for shipment on board which takes place                 Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977
    after expiry ofthe prescribed time-limit where he did not                on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
    fix the timing of delivery with the agent, twice refused                 relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
    vessels which the agent offered and advised the agent on                 added tax: uniform basis of assessment;
    29 August 1980 that the latter should make a vessel
    available for loading by 1 September 1980 at the                   2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    latest;
                                                                       (M OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
3 . Article 6 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1824/80 is to be
    interpreted as meaning that the security is forfeited
    where the quality standards referred to in Article 7 of the


title: Case C-308/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 4 — Equal treatment as regards access to social security benefits — Right of residence — Directive 2004/38/EC — National legislation under which child benefit and child tax credit are not granted to nationals of other Member States who do not have a right of lawful residence)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-308/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 4 - Equal treatment as regards access to social security benefits - Right of residence - Directive 2004/38/EC - National legislation under which child benefit and child tax credit are not granted to nationals of other Member States who do not have a right of lawful residence))
   (2016/C 305/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and J. Beeko, acting as Agents, and J. Coppel QC)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 February 1995 in Case T-66/94: Auditel Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Intervention - Confidentiality - Rules on the use of languages)

text:
No C 87/12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Embassy,      9   Boulevard       Prince  Henri,  against the
                       of 15 February 1995                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. J.
                                                                     Drijber and J. Bourgeois ), supported by Kali and Salz
in Case T-552/93 : Giuseppe Grassi v. Commission of the              Beteiligungs-Aktiengesellschaft and Kali und Salz GmbH,
                  European Communities f 1 )                         established in Kassel (Federal Republic of Germany),
 (Officials  — Admissibility — Prior complaint through               represented by Karlheinz Quack, of the Berlin Bar, and
 official channels — Implied decision, not contested within          Georg Albrechtskirchinger, of the Frankfurt am Main Bar,
 the period prescribed, rejecting a request — Subsequent             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    express decision — Confirmatory act — Out of time)               of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe — application for the
                             ( 95/C 87/26                            partial annulment, first, of Article 1 of the decision of the
                                                                     Commission of 14 December 1993 relating to a proceeding
                                                                     under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations
                                                                     between            undertakings           ( IV-M.308          —
In Case T-552/93 : Giuseppe Grassi, a temporary agent of             Kali+Salz/MdK/Treuhand ), in so far as it makes the
the Commission of the European Communities assigned to               declaring of the concentration compatible with the common
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Cadrezzate,            market conditional upon compliance with the conditions set
represented by Angelo Ulgheri, of the Milan Bar, with an             out in paragraph 63 thereof and, secondly, of the decision,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 in so far as it. has accepted the commitment mentioned in
Franco " Colussi, 36 Rue Wiltz, v. Commission of the                 paragraph 65 thereof whereby Kali und Salz AG undertook
European Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia ) — application             to modify the corporate structure of Potacan by 30 June
for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of               1994 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
24 September 1992 rejecting the applicant's request for the          extended composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
transfer of his pension rights, acquired in the Italian State        President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and
pension scheme, to the Community pension scheme — the                A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J.             order on 1 February 1995, the operative part of which is as
Biancarelli, President, and C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,           follows :
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
 15 February 1995 , in which it:                                     1 , jurisdiction is declined in Case T-88/94, Société
                                                                         Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote and Entreprise
                                                                         Minière et Chimique v. Commission of the European
 1 . dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                         Communities, in order to enable the Court ofJustice to
                                                                         rule on the application for annulment;
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                     2 . the costs are reserved.
(!) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          (Second Chamber, extended composition)                                           of 6 February 1995
                        of 1 February 1995                           in Case T-66/94: Auditel Sri v. Commission of the European
in Case T-88/94: Société Commerciale des Potasses et de
                                                                                Communities (*)
l'Azote and Entreprise Minière et Chimique v. Commission             (Intervention — Confidentiality — Rules on the use of
              of the European Communities ( a )                                                   languages)
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                                                   ( 95/C 87/28 )
                            ( 95/C 87/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-66/94: Auditel Sri, established in Milan (Italy),
                                                                    represented by Giuseppe Sena and Paola Tarchini, of the
In Case T- 8 8/94 : Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de          Milan Bar, Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
l'Azote, established in Mulhouse (France ), and Entreprise           Scassellati Sforzolini and Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
Miniere et Chimique, established at Paris, represented by           Bologna Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Charles Price, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service     the office of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich, v.
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14A Rue               Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G.
des Bains, supported by French Republic (Agents : Edwige            Marenco and A. Dal Ferro) — application for the
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey), with         annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                  93/668/EC of 24 November 1993 relating to a proceeding
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 4 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/ 13
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/32.031 —                  Jean-Marc Florand, of the Paris Bar v. Commission of the
Auditel ) (2) — the Court of First Instance (Enlarged Fourth          European Communities (Agents: G. Marenco and W. Wils )
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and R.                 — application for ( 1 ) suspension of operation of the
Schintgen, C. P. Briet, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner            decisions said to be contained in the Commission's letters of
and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                20 September, 5 October and 26 October 1994 in which it
order on 6 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as          rejected the applicant's complaint concerning alleged
follows:                                                              anti-competitive practices by various undertakings said to
                                                                      have caused an increase in the tenancy costs borne by the
1 . leave is granted to D & B Marketing Information                   residents of Square d'Auvergne and ( 2 ) an order that the
     Services to intervene in support of the form of order            Community pay the applicant an advance of ECU 150 000
     sought be the defendant;                                         in respect of irrecoverable costs vexatiously caused on
                                                                      account of the costs to be awarded in the main proceedings
2. the request for confidential treatment in relation to the          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
     intervener is granted as regards the whole of Annex 20           order on 16 February 1995 , in which:
     to the application and to the following extent as regards
     Annex I to the application:                                      1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
     — the notification (form A/B and the Annex thereto)
         will be disclosed to the intervener with the exception       2 . the costs are reserved.
          of those items which have been obscured in the
          version of that document appended to this order,
     — Annexes 1,2,4 and 5 to the notification will not be
          disclosed to the intervener,
     — the request for confidential treatment is rejected as
          regards the remainder, namely Annexes 3 and 6 to            Action brought on 20 January 1995 by BP Chemicals
          the notification;                                           Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
3 . the registrar shall serve a non-confidential version of the                               (Case T-ll/95 )
     documents in the case on the intervener;
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/30 )
4. a period shall be prescribed within which the intervener
     must set out in writing its pleas in support ofthe form of                       (Language of the case: English)
     order which it seeks;
5 . D 8>cB 's request to derogate from the rules on the use of        An action against the Commission of the European
     languages is rejected as regards the written                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     procedure;                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 20 January 1995
                                                                      by BP Chemicals Limited, represented by J. E. Flynn,
                                                                      Solicitor of Linklaters & Paines, Brussels, with an address
6 . D 8c B is granted leave to use English during the oral            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
     procedure;                                                       Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
7. the costs are reserved.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(!) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
(2 ) OJ No L 306, 11 . 12 . 1993 , p . 50.                            (a ) annul the decision of the Commission under the EC
                                                                            Treaty's State aid rules concerning three capital
                                                                            injections to Enichem SpA ( 1 ); and
                                                                      ( b ) order the Commission to pay the costs of this
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      action.
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 16 February 1995                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Case T-5/95 R: Amicale des Résidents du Square
d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European                              The applicant maintains that the contested decision should
                          Communities
                                                                      be annulled on substantive and procedural grounds and that
                           ( 95/C 87/29                               its reasoning is inadequate. Specifically, it considers that the
                                                                      Commission erred :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — in finding the first two injections compatible with the
In Case T-5/95 R: Amicale des Résidents du Square                          common market, thereby committing a manifest error of
d'Auvergne, established at Massy, France, represented by                   assessment going beyond the scope of its discretion


title: Case C-432/12 P: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2013 — Leifheit AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vermop Salmon GmbH
   (Case C-432/12 P) (1)

   2013/C 225/123
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-147/99: Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 26 March 1999 (Decision C(1999) 760
                                                                              final) by which it rejected the request made by the Kingdom
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 541 of                    of Belgium, for the benefit of Miller NV, seeking a waiver
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one                      of post-clearance recovery of import duties in respect of
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission                        television sets imported from Turkey during the period
Decision C (93) 3401 of 26 November 1992 concerning grant                     from 5 June 1991 to 26 February 1992 or the remission
of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council                    of those duties;
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1), in connection with Project
No 92.IT.06.057 entitled ‘Action in the form of a pilot                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
demonstrative project for the reduction of production costs
and fertiliser costs in sunflower cultivation’.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                          — Infringement of the rights of the defence:
Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.
                                                                              By not allowing Miller NV to inspect the administrative
                                                                              file, the Commission infringed an essential procedural
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No              requirement and failed to respect Miller’s rights of defence.
     2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of
     24.12.1994, p. 11).                                                  — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly concluded in the contested
                                                                              decision (1) that there was no question in the present
                                                                              case of any error having been made by the competent
                                                                              authorities, and (2) that Miller NV had not acted in good
                                                                              faith, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No
                                                                              1697/79.
                                                                          — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV against the
          Commission of the European Communities                              Regulation No 1430/79:
                                                                              The Commission wrongly found in the contested decision
                           (Case T-147/99)                                    that the first of the conditions for the application of the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 13 — namely, the existence of
                                                                              special circumstances — had not been met in the present
                          (1999/C 246/81)                                     case.
                                                                          — Failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
                     (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            statement of reasons (Article 253 EC).
                                                                          — In the alternative, breach of the principle of pro-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     portionality:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Miller NV,                            By requiring Miller NV to pay import duties in an amount
established at Willebroek (Belgium), represented by Y. Van                    greater than the countervailing charge, the Commission
Gerven and I. Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                 committed a breach of the principle of proportionality.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to produce all documents on which
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber
      it based its contested decision, together with all documents
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
      — including those of an administrative nature — relating
      to this matter, including, for example, those which
      prompted it to organise a mission to Turkey in 1993 for                                      (Case: T-149/99)
      the purposes of carrying out an investigation into the issue
      of ATR certificates for television sets, the results of that                                 (1999/C 246/82)
      mission and the reports drawn up in relation to it, any
      correspondence on that subject between the Commission
      and the Member States and between the Commission and                                  (Language of the case: German)
      the Turkish authorities, etc., in order that the same may be
      examined by the Court, and require those documents also             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      to be produced to Miller NV, in order to enable the latter          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to examine whether it may use them by way of further                European Communities on 21 June 1999 by Mrs Helga Weber,
      support for its application in the present case and the pleas       Köln, represented by Anja Bornemann of Leinen & Derichs,
      advanced therein;                                                   Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.


title: Case C-374/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014  — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of the word mark METROINVEST — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark and applicant for the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘METRO’ , in the colours blue and yellow — Refusal of registration)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-374/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of the word mark METROINVEST - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark and applicant for the Community figurative mark comprising the word element ‘METRO’, in the colours blue and yellow - Refusal of registration))
   2014/C 261/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. (represented by: J.-C. Plate, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones SL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-161/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc (Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union — Article 58 — Community legislation — No translation into the language of a Member State — Enforceability)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/13

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Skoma-Lux sro v Celní ředitelství Olomouc
   (Case C-161/06) (1)

   (Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union - Article 58 - Community legislation - No translation into the language of a Member State - Enforceability)
   (2008/C 51/21)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Referring court
   Krajský soud v Ostravě
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skoma-Lux sro

      Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) — Imposition of a fine on a Czech importing undertaking for making a customs declaration containing incorrect information, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 which had not yet been published in Czech in the Official Journal of the European Union

   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, precludes the obligations contained in Community legislation which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a new Member State, where that language is an official language of the European Union, from being imposed on individuals in that State, even though those persons could have learned of that legislation by other means.

               2.

               In holding that a Community regulation which is not published in the language of a Member State is unenforceable against individuals in that State, the Court is interpreting Community law for the purposes of Article 234 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-229/99: Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 226/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
    Council Directive 76/207/EEC ... ’. The French Govern-              — in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission
    ment’s argument that it had not been possible to initiate               forthwith of such measures the Portuguese Republic failed
    consultations with labour and employers with a view to                  to fulfil its obligations under those same provisions;
    submitting legislation to Parliament on nightwork is
    wholly without foundation. It is settled case-law that a            — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or
    situations in its national legal system to justify a failure to
    comply with obligations under Community law.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— The Commission refers to its communications published in              — The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
    the Official Journal on 21 August 1996 (2) and 28 February              paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article
    1997 (3). It considers that the circumstances in which a                10 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
    financial penalty may be waived do not pertain. Based on                measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
    the principle set out in those communications, it has                   them into their domestic law before the expiry of the
    calculated the amount of the fine by attributing a coef-                period prescribed for doing so. That period expired on
    ficient of 9/20 to the seriousness of the breach (being the             25 October 1997 without Portugal having brought into
    sum of a coefficient of 6/10, based on the importance of                force the necessary provisions.
    the Community provisions breached, and a coefficient of
    3/10, based on the effects of the breach on the public
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.
    interest and the interests of individuals) and a multipli-
    cation coefficient of 1.5/3 to the length of time.
(1) Case C-197/96 (1997) ECR I-1489.
(2) OJ 1996 C 242, p. 6.
(3) OJ 1997 C 63, p. 2.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-229/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/45)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Action brought on 11 June 1999 by the Commission                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                            Republic                                    represented by Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                         (Case C-227/99)                                Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 226/44)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June                 Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Directive 90/628/EEC concerning the protection of ani-
represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and António                    mals during transport (1), the French Republic has failed to
Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address            fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              and
Cruz of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    comply with Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October            in Case C-227/99; the time-limit laid down in Article 2 of the
    1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Com-                 directive expired on 31 December 1996.
    munity airports, within the period prescribed by the first
    subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof, the Portuguese
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first       (1) OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52.
    paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article
    249 of the EC Treaty as well as under the first subparagraph
    of Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC; and


title: Case T-524/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg v Parliament

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/51

         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg v Parliament
   (Case T-524/08)
   (2009/C 44/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: AIB-Vinçotte Luxembourg ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by R. Adam, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 2 October 2008 rejecting the offer made by the applicant in connection with call for tenders INLO — A — BATI LUX — 07 268 & 271 — 00 for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg,

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions, in particular an order that the Parliament pay damages in connection with the loss incurred;

               —

               in any event, order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Parliament's decision to reject its offer submitted in connection with the call for tenders for lot B of the contract relating to the projected extension and refurbishment of the KAD building in Luxembourg — Tasks of an approved inspection body (OJ 2008 S 193-254240).
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

               —

               manifest error of assessment on the part of the Parliament, in that (i) the association to which the contract was awarded did not have the necessary authorisations to perform the tasks requested, as required in the tender specifications, and (ii) that association's offer stated a price that was abnormally low having regard to the criteria in the specifications;

               —

               infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that (i) the Parliament did not state the specific benefits of the offer accepted in comparison with the applicant's offer, thus not enabling the applicant to identify the reasons why its offer was not accepted, and (ii) the applicant was not put in a position to know whether the assessment committee met and, if so, what its conclusions were;

               —

               infringement of the principles of diligence, good administration and transparency, as the Parliament failed to provide the explanations requested within a reasonable time;

               —

               infringement of the provisions of the administrative specifications, in that neither the contested decision nor the subsequent letters mentioned remedies.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-107/96: Community of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/156/EEC)

text:
26 . 7. 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/3
Agreement between the European Economic Community                     broadcasting activities is to be interpreted as meaning that
and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish            a television broadcaster comes under the jurisdiction of
worker does not satisfy the condition of having been in               the Member States in which it is established. If a television
legal employment, within the meaning of that provision,               broadcaster is established in more than one Member State,
in the host Member State, where he has been employed                  the Member State having jurisdiction over it is the one in
there under a residence permit which was issued to him                whose territory the broadcaster has the centre of its
only as a result of fraudulent conduct in respect of which            activities, in particular where decisions concerning
he has been convicted.                                                programme policy are taken and the programmes to be
                                                                      broadcast are finally put together.
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                      o OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 5 June 1997
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
in Case C-56/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Raad van State van België): VT4 Ltd v. Vlaamse                    in     Case   C-107/96: Community of the European
                        Gemeenschaap (*)                                           Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
(Free movement of services — Television broadcasting —                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/156/EEC)
       Establishment — Evasion of domestic legislation)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/06 )
                           ( 97/C 228/05 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-107/96 : Commission of the European
In Case C-56/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright and Fernando
of the EC Treaty by the Raad van State van Belgie, for                Castillo de la Torre ) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                Perez de Ayala Becerril ) — application for a declaration
that court between VT4 Ltd and Vlaamse Gemeenschap                    that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or to notify
(third parties : Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Elektriciteit van het Westen ( Gaselwest) and Others,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vlaamse Uitgeversmaatschappij NV (VUM), Integan                       Council     Directive    91 /156/EEC     of  18  March    1991
Intercommunale CV and Others and Vlaamse Televisie                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78,
Maatschappij NV (VTM)) — on the interpretation of                     26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the                 fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                  Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty —the Court ( Fifth
regulation or administrative action in Member States                  Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities          President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.
 ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ), — the Court                  Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
composed of G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L.            Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)                judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it:
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate-General; C. O.
Lenz, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it rules :
                                                                       1 . declares that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                            within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                           Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991
3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in                    Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Member States concerning the pursuit of television                          under Article 2 (1 ) of that Directive;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
O OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 12 June 1997
                                                                        in Case C-266/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Bundessozialgericht): Pascual Merino Garcia v. Bun
                                                                                desanstalt fur Arbeit ( l )
                                                                        (Social security of migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1408/71 — Persons covered — 'Employed persons ' —
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           Family benefits)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/08 )
                           of 5 June 1997
in     Case   C-223/96: Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: German)
              Communities v. French Republic ( l )
    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/156/EEC)
                            ( 97/C 228/07 )                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case C-266/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal
                                                                        Social Court) ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          proceedings pending before that court between Pascual
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Merino Garcia and Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on the
                                                                        interpretation and validity of Point I ( C ) of Annex I to
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                        on the application of social security schemes to employed
In Case C-223/96 : Commission of the European
                                                                        persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Communities ( Agent: M. Kondou Durande, assisted by                     families moving within the Community, as amended and
J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar ) v. French Republic
                                                                        updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
( Agents: C. de Salins, and R. Nadal ) — application for a
                                                                        2 June 1983 ( OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as
declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and             amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council      Directive    91 / 156/EEC    of  18   March     1991
                                                                        30 October 1989 ( OJ No L 331 , 16 . 11 . 1989, p. 1 ) —
                                                                        the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini
amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78 ,                   ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris,
26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 ), or by not communicating those                  G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N.
measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
obligations under that Directive — the Court ( Fifth                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,                     12 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), D. A. O.
Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it:                                   In accordance with Article 73 of Council Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes to employed persons, to self
                                                                        employed persons and to members of their families
1 . declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                moving within the Community, as amended and updated
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ,
      with Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991               as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
      amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the French                30 October 1989, the expression 'employed persons ' must
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               be construed as designating only employed persons who
      Article 2 (1 ) of that Directive;                                 satisfy the definition resulting from the combined
                                                                        provisions of Article 1 (a) (ii) of the Regulation and
                                                                        Point I (C) of Annex I thereto, for the purposes of paying
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                        family benefits under the German legislation.
                                                                        Furthermore, consideration of the questions referred has
                                                                        not disclosed any factor such as to cast doubt on the
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                       validity of the said Annex. However, Article 48 (2) of the
                                                                        EC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                        application of national legislation which results in an
                                                                        employed person whose children are domiciled in another