title: Case C-508/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/59/EC — Article 11 — Waste management — Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls — Failure to communicate the required plans and outlines)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-508/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/59/EC - Article 11 - Waste management - Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls - Failure to communicate the required plans and outlines)
   (2008/C 22/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, L. Farrugia, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31) — Failure to prepare and communicate to the Commission within the period laid down the plans, outlines and summaries of inventories prescribed by the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate the plans and outlines required under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 54 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;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 October 1998 in Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (PHARE programme - Decision to annul an invitation to tender and issue a new invitation to tender - Action for damages - Admissibility - Damage resulting from the loss suffered by a tenderer, from its loss of profit and from the harm caused to its image)

text:
C 397/28             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-188/98 (1)
                        (98/C 397/50)                                                        (98/C 397/52)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                 By order of 20 October 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (reference for a          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):                  removal from the register of Case C-188/98: Commission
1. RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft 2. Stadt Nordhorn v.              of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Bundeskartellamt.                                                   Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (1)
                        (98/C 397/51)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-47/98 (1)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of                                    (98/C 397/53)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (reference
for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):               By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Court of
WINGAS GmbH (formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH) v.                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Stadt Detmold.                                                      removal from the register of Case C-47/98: Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           tendering procedure for a feasibility study for the
                                                                    modernisation of a railway junction in Warsaw on the E-
                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    20 line, and of the restricted invitation to tender of
in Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl v. Commission of the                      4 December 1995 for a feasibility study for the
                  European Communities (1)                          modernisation of the Warsaw railway node on the E-20
                                                                    TEN line Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(PHARE programme Ð Decision to annul an invitation to               composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
tender and issue a new invitation to tender Ð Action for            Cooke, Judges; M. Johansson, Legal Secretary, for the
damages Ð Admissibility Ð Damage resulting from the                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
loss suffered by a tenderer, from its loss of profit and from       which it:
                the harm caused to its image)
                        (98/C 397/54)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the action;
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs relating to the
                                                                        claim for damages;
In Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl, a company incorporated
under Italian law, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian
Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples              3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs relating to
Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                        the application for annulment.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Marie-JoseÂ Jonczy and Lucio Gussetti) Ð application, at
the stage ultimately reached in the proceedings, for                (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of the Commission decision,
contained in a letter of 16 November 1995, annulling the


title: Case C-364/00: Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
9.12.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/11
Must the prohibition of discrimination in the first paragraph             Action brought on 2 October 2000 by the Commission
of Article 12 EC be applied in cases where a foreign author               of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
had already died when the Treaty entered into force in the
State of which he was a national, if otherwise the consequence,
under national law, would be unequal treatment as regards the
term of protection of the foreign author’s works and of those                                      (Case C-365/00)
of a national author who also died before the entry into force
of the Treaty?
                                                                                (2000/C 355/21)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 October
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission                        and Roberto Amorosi, Magistrato di Tribunale, on secondment
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                    to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                             Netherlands                                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de
                                                                          la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-364/00)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2000/C 355/20)
                                                                          —     declare that, by adopting and keeping in force Article 28
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                    of Law No 128 of 24 April 1998, which makes it a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                         requirement that the labels of cosmetic products state
on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European                             whether the fragrances or perfume essences contained in
Communities, represented by Th. Van Rijn, Legal Adviser,                        them are of natural or artificial origin, has failed to fulfil
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                   its obligations under Council Directive 76/768/EEC of
the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal                   27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), as
                                                                                amended for the sixth time by Council Directive
                                                                                93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (2), in particular by the third
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     subparagraph of Article 6(1)(g) of that directive;
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the             —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      97/70/EC (1) of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmon-
      ised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
      length and over, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;
                                                                          The Commission argues that, because the Italian law in
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              question prevents the free movement within Italian territory
                                                                          of cosmetic products which carry no indication of whether the
                                                                          fragrances or perfume essences contained in them are of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           natural or artificial origin, that law introduces an additional
                                                                          requirement not contemplated by Directive 76/768/EEC and
                                                                          thus prohibited by it. Furthermore, the Italian authorities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in               themselves have demonstrated that they are aware of this
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on               matter, albeit that they have shown themselves unable to
1 January 1999.                                                           resolve the problem.
(1) OJ 1998 L 34, pp. 1-29.                                               (1) OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976, p. 169.
(2) OJ C …                                                                (2) OJ L 151 of 23.6.1993, p. 32.


title: Case C-321/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA v State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/39

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Luxembourg) lodged on 29 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA v State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-321/15)
   (2015/C 294/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ArcelorMittal Rodange et Schifflange SA

      Defendant: State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

      Question referred

   Is Article 13(6) of the amended Law of 23 December 2004 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading, in so far as it allows the competent minister to order the surrender, without full or partial compensation of allowances issued in accordance with Article 12(2) and (4) of that law, but not used, compatible with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1), and more particularly with the broad logic of the emissions trading scheme provided for by that directive, that question encompassing the issue of the legal validity of the surrender of allowances which have been issued but not used, and, if that question is answered in the affirmative, of their classification, as well as that of the possible classification of such allowances as property?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case C-194/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage by order of 22 April 2004 in the case of Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie Nevedi v Produktschap Diervoeder

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage by order of 22 April 2004 in the case of Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie Nevedi v Produktschap Diervoeder
   (Case C-194/04)
   (2004/C 179/07)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 22 April 2004 of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Local Court, The Hague), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie Nevedi v Produktschap Diervoeder on the following questions:

               1.

               Are Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2 (1) and/or Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2, to the extent to which it amends Article 5c(2)(a) of Directive 79/373 by requiring percentages to be listed, invalid by reason of:

                           (a)

                           the absence of a legal basis in Article 152(4)(b) EC;

                           (b)

                           infringement of fundamental rights, such as the right to property and the right freely to exercise a trade or profession;

                           (c)

                           infringement of the principle of proportionality?

               2.

               If the conditions are satisfied under which a national court of a Member State is entitled to suspend implementation of a contested measure of the Community institutions, in particular also the condition that the question concerning the validity of the contested measure has already been referred by a national court of that Member State to the Court of Justice, are the competent public authorities of the other Member States themselves also entitled, without judicial intervention, to suspend the contested measure until such time as the Court of Justice has given a ruling on the validity of that measure?

      (1)  OJ L 63 of 6 March 2002, pp. 23 to 25.


title: Case T-537/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Zafeiropoulos v Cedefop (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of medical services for the benefit of Cedefop staff — Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Refusal to allow access to certain documents concerning other tenderers who participated in the tendering procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of commercial interests and reputation — Personal data protection — Protection of the decision-making process — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Zafeiropoulos v Cedefop
   (Case T-537/12) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of medical services for the benefit of Cedefop staff - Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Refusal to allow access to certain documents concerning other tenderers who participated in the tendering procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of commercial interests and reputation - Personal data protection - Protection of the decision-making process - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 098/36)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Panteleimon Zafeiropoulos (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: M. Kontogiorgos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, acting as Agent, assisted initially by E. Petritsi and subsequently by P. Anestis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of (i) the decision of Cedefop of 8 October 2012 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the contract notice of 19 June 2012 published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2012/S 115-189528) concerning the provision of medical services to Cedefop staff in Thessaloniki (Greece); (ii) the decision of Cedefop of 9 October 2012 awarding the contract set out in that contract notice to a tenderer other than the applicant; and (iii) the decision of Cedefop rejecting the applicant’s request for access to certain documents relating to the contract award procedure; and, secondly, for compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the infringements allegedly committed by Cedefop.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 8 October 2012 rejecting the tender submitted by Mr Panteleimon Zafeiropoulos in response to the contract notice dated 19 June 2012 concerning the provision of medical services to Cedefop staff in Thessaloniki (Greece) and the decision of Cedefop of 9 October 2012 awarding the contract set out in that contract notice to a tenderer other than
                     Mr
                   Zafeiropoulos;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Cedefop to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Zafeiropoulos;

               4.

               Orders Mr Zafeiropoulos to bear two thirds of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-322/15: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the question referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/9

      Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni
      (Case C-322/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the question referred - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/18)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl

         Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

         Intervening parties: Filandolarete Srl, Associazione Confindustria Radio Televisioni, Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali (FIEG)

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, Italy), by decision of 22 April 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-332/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Azarov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-332/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified))
   (2016/C 098/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksii Mykolayovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and, secondly, of Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 16) and of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation No 208/2014, in so far as they concern Mr Oleksii Mykolayovych Azarov;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Azarov in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application;

               4.

               Orders Mr Azarov to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council in relation to the claim for annulment made in the statement modifying the form of order sought;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-421/12: Action brought on 25 September 2012 — Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/8

         Action brought on 25 September 2012 — Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung v Commission
   (Case T-421/12)
   2012/C 373/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Württembergische Gemeinde-Versicherung a. G. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and J.-O. Schrotz)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 July 2012 refusing the applicant’s request under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass);

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: No examination of the individual documents requested
               In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a concrete and individual examination of each individual document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally incorrect assumption that there was a general presumption in the present case that an exception would apply.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               Here the applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission provided merely sweeping considerations as reasons for the comprehensive refusal of the applicant’s request and therefore did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision. In the applicant’s view, that constitutes an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and therefore an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Legally incorrect interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
               With the third plea, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions set out in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were legally incorrect. In the applicant’s view, the Commission failed to take account of the ‘rule-exception’ relationship and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Failure to take into consideration the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law is a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
               In the fourth plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that there was no overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents. In the applicant’s view the Commission should, in particular in the context of the balancing of the interests, have taken into account the fact that the enforcement of cartel law under private law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 November 1995 in Case T-128/95: Aéroports de Paris v. Commission of the European Communities (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement proceedings - Action for annulment - Action for declaration of failure to act - Inadmissible)

text:
No C 16/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 November 1995
2, there is no need to rule on the application to                     in Case T-128/95 : Aéroports de Paris v. Commission of the
     intervene;                                                                            European Communities (*)
                                                                      (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement
3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay         proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for
     the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is                       declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)
     ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection                                         ( 96/C 16/32 )
     with the submission of its application to intervene.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                      In Case T-128/95 : Aéroports de Paris, established in Paris,
                                                                      represented by Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) —
                                                                      application, primarily, for annulment of the decision of the
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate proceedings
                     of 13 November 1995                              against the Hellenic Republic for infringement of
                                                                      Community law with respect to the award of the public
    in Case T-127/95 : Société auxiliaire d'entreprises v.            contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
        Commission of the European Communities ( J )                  alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has
(Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement            failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for                       composed of C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
         declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)                Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                            { 96/C 16/31 )                             13 November 1 995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                 (Language of the case: French)                        1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
In Case T-127/95 : Société auxiliaire d'entreprises,                  2 , there is no need to rule on the application to
established at Issy-les-Molineaux ( France ), represented by                 intervene;
Alexandre Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar, v. Commission of the
European Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) —
application, primarily, for the annulment of the decision of          3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay
the Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate                              the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is
proceedings against the Hellenic Republic for infringement                   ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection
of Community law with respect to the award of the public                     with the submission of its application to intervene.
contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has               f 1 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
composed of C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
 13 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
 1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 November 1995
2 , there is no need to rule on the application to                     in Case T-168/95 R: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA
      intervene;                                                                and Others v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                96/C 16/33 )
 3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay
      the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection
      with the submission of its application to intervene.             In Case T- 1 68/95 R: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA,
                                                                       established in Genoa ( Italy ), Industria Saccarifera Italiana
 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                     Agroindustriale SpA (ISI ), established in Padua (Italy ),
                                                                        Sadam Zuccherifici, established in Bologna ( Italy ), Sadam
                                                                        Castiglionese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo
                                                                        SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,


title: Case F-59/09: Action brought on 13 June 2009 — De Nicola v EIB

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/49

         Action brought on 13 June 2009 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-59/09)
   2009/C 205/91
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the measure adopted by the Appeals Committee on 14 November 2008 or the amendment of that measure in so far as it attributes to the applicant, instead of to his lawyer, the objection made to the three members of the committee. Second, annulment of the promotions decided upon on 29 April 2008, in so far as the applicant was not considered for promotion, and all related measures. Lastly, a declaration that the applicant was the victim of mobbing and an order that the defendant desist from such activity.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure of the Appeals Committee and, in any event, amend it in so far as it attributes to Mr De Nicola (instead of to his lawyer) the objection made to the three members of the committee and in so far as it states that the grounds of the objection were ‘nothing more than a simple challenge to the decision of 14 December 2007’, rather than the result of the admissions and abandonment of his claims which those three members wrongly attributed to Mr De Nicola;

               —

               annul the promotions of 29 April 2008 on the basis that they were decided upon without the applicant being considered for promotion, and all related, consequent and prior measures, including the assessment for 2007 and, if appropriate, declare that the restrictions imposed by the instructions given by the HR Directorate are unlawful;

               —

               declare that the applicant was the victim of mobbing and, accordingly,

               —

               order the EIB to desist from the mobbing and to pay compensation for the consequent personal, material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant and to pay the costs of the proceedings together with interest and monetary revaluation of the sums awarded.


title: Case C-400/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value Added Tax — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Right to deduction — Decision 2004/817/EC — Legislative provision of a Member State — Expenditure on goods and services — Extent of use of goods or services for non-economic purposes greater than 90 % of total use — Exclusion of the right to deduct)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/21

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg
   (Case C-400/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduction - Decision 2004/817/EC - Legislative provision of a Member State - Expenditure on goods and services - Extent of use of goods or services for non-economic purposes greater than 90 % of total use - Exclusion of the right to deduct))
   (2016/C 419/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

      Defendant: Finanzamt Brandenburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC of 19 November 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a situation in which the goods or services that an undertaking acquires are used, to an extent greater than 90 %, for non-economic activities, which fall outside the scope of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2003 in Case T-147/00: Les Laboratoires Servier v Commission of the European Communities (Medicinal products for human use — Community arbitration procedures — Withdrawal of marketing authorisations — Competence — Serotonergic anorectics: dexfenfluramine, fenfluramine — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC)

text:
C 83/18                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.4.2003
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 16 January 2003                                                          of 28 January 2003
in Case T-75/00: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                        in Case T-147/00: Les Laboratoires Servier v Commission
                    European Communities ( 1)                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Medicinal products for human use — Community arbi-
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post                       tration procedures — Withdrawal of marketing authoris-
— Engagement in outside activities without prior authoris-
                                                                             ations — Competence — Serotonergic anorectics: dexfenflur-
                                 ation)                                      amine, fenfluramine — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/
                                                                                EEC)
                           (2003/C 83/42)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/43)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-75/00: Augusto Fichtner, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                      In Case T-147/00, Les Laboratoires Servier, established in
Besozzo (Italy), represented initially by V. Salvatore, avvocato,            Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by C. Norall, E. Wright,
and subsequently by V. La Russa, avvocato, against Com-                      M.I.F. Utgès Manley, I.S. Forrester QC and J. Killick, lawyers,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission
A. Dal Ferro) — application, first, for annulment of the                     of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and
Commission decision imposing on the applicant the disciplin-                 R. Wainwright): Application for annulment of the Commission
ary measure of removal from his post, with maintenance of                    decision of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
retirement pension rights, on the ground that he had engaged                 marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use
in outside activities without prior authorisation, and, second,              which contain the [following] substances: ‘dexfenfluramine’
for payment of compensation — the Court of First Instance                    and ‘fenfluramine’ (C(2000) 573), the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, P. Men-                (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
gozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal                R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
16 January 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 2003, in
                                                                             which it:
1.     The application is dismissed;
                                                                             1.     Annuls the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 (C(2000)
                                                                                573);
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs, including those relating
       to the proceedings for interim measures.                              2.     Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
( 1) OJ C 135, 13.5.00.                                                      (1 ) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000.


title: Case C-284/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2006 — Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark v Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2006 — Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark v Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH
   (Case C-284/06)
   (2006/C 237/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark

      Respondent: Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is there withholding tax within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6, …, now Article 5 as amended by Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, OJ 2004 L 7, p. 41) in the case in which national law provides that, where profits are distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, income and asset increases of the capital company are taxed which, under national law, would not be taxed if they remained with the subsidiary and were not distributed to the parent company?

               2.

               Should Question 1 be answered in the negative: is it compatible with Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) and with Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) for a national rule to provide for divergent set-off arrangements for the distribution of profits by a capital company using portions of its own capital, resulting in consequent tax liability even in cases in which the capital company demonstrates that it has distributed dividends to non-resident shareholders, even though, under national law, such non-resident shareholders, unlike resident shareholders, are not entitled to set off against their own tax the corporation tax thus determined?

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 6.


title: Case T-73/13: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/60

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA
   (Case T-73/13) (1)

   (2015/C 311/66)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-294/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon): Athinaiki Zithopiia AE v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (Taxation of company profits — Parent companies and subsidiaries — Directive 90/435/EEC — Concept of withholding tax)

text:
10.11.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/3
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of
Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation                                            (Fifth Chamber)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1676/96                                             of 4 October 2001
of 30 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 218, p. 1) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                     in Case C-294/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate                     the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon): Athinaiki Zithopiia AE
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                             v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
gave a judgment on 27 September 2001, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                              (Taxation of company profits — Parent companies and
                                                                              subsidiaries — Directive 90/435/EEC — Concept of with-
                                                                                holding tax)
1.    Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
      12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                            (2001/C 317/05)
      does not permit the repayment of import duties where, after a
      complete customs declaration has been accepted by the customs                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      authorities and the goods covered by it have been released into
      free circulation, the declarant presents a certificate of authenticity
      by virtue of which the goods would, supposing the certificate to        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      have been produced with the goods, have been eligible for                                   in the European Court Reports)
      favourable tariff treatment.
                                                                              In Case C-294/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC from the the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Administrative
2.    The fact that repayment or remission of duties pursuant to              Court of First Instance, Athens), Greece, for a preliminary
      Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is excluded because             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      one of the legal conditions laid down for that repayment or             Athinaiki Zithopiia AE and Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) —
      remission has not been satisfied does not, of itself, exclude           on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive
      repayment or remission of those duties on the basis of                  90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of
      Articles 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 and                            taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
      Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93                subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6)
      of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation            — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
      Regulation (EC) No 1676/96 of 30 July 1996, provided                    D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
      however that the legal conditions for the application of those          Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
      provisions are satisfied.                                               has given a judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has
                                                                              ruled:
      Factors ‘which might constitute a special situation resulting
      from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence          There is a withholding tax, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of
      may be attributed to the person concerned’ for the purposes of          Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
      Article 905(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by                  system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
      Regulation No 1676/96, exist where, having regard to the                subsidiaries of different Member States, where national legislation
      objective of fairness underlying Article 239 of Regulation              provides that, in the event of distribution of profits by a subsidiary (a
      No 2913/92, factors liable to place the applicant in an                 public limited company or equivalent company) to its parent company,
      exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged          in order to determine the taxable profits of the subsidiary its total net
      in the same business are found to exist. It is for the national         profits, including income which has been subject to special taxation
      court to assess, on the basis of that criterion, whether factors        entailing extinction of tax liability and non-taxable income, must be
      which might constitute such a special situation do exist,               reincorporated into the basic taxable amount, when income falling
      necessitating examination of the file by the Commission.                within those two categories would not be taxable on the basis of the
                                                                              national legislation if they remained with the subsidiary and were not
                                                                              distributed to the parent company.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 10 March 1995 in the case of 1. B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v. Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH (Case C-78/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/9
4 . In the event that question 3 is answered in the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
     affirmative, does that obligation have direct effect, that        Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 15 March 1995
     is to say, can it be invoked by an individual before a            in the case of Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van
     national court and must it be applied by the national                                          Financiën
     court even though it was not in fact invoked in the                                       ( Case C-80/95 )
     matter pending before that court ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/19
(!) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                       15 March 1995, which was received at the Couft Regfefty
                                                                       on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der              Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on the
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 10 March 1995 in              following questions :
the case of 1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v.
                Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH                            1 . Are the mere acquisition of ownership in and the
                           (Case C-78/95 )                                 holding of bonds — claims embodied in marketable
                            ( 95/C 119/18 )                                securities —, activities which are not subservient to any
                                                                           other business activity, and the receipt of income
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     therefrom to be regarded as economic activities within
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                        the meaning of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Directive ?
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
10 March 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry              2 . If that question has to be answered in the affirmative,
on 16 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 should those activities be regarded as transactions,
1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v. Magenta Druck                   within the meaning of Article 13B ( d ) ( 1 ) or ( 5 ) of the
& Verlag GmbH, on the following questions:                                 Sixth Directive, which, in so far as they relate to bonds
                                                                           issued by a body established outside the Community,
1 . Must Article 29 of the Brussels              Convention be             confer an entitlement to deduct the input tax imposed
     interpreted as meaning that the court "of the State in                on the possession and management of the bonds as a
     which recognition is sought must refrain from making                  result of Article 17 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive ?
     any inquiry into the question as to whether the
     defendant to the proceedings conducted in the State in            3 . If question 2 has to be answered in the affirmative, in the
     which judgment was given was validly represented, even                event that a taxable person carrying out the activities
     if the court of the State in which judgment was given                 referred to in the foregoing questions is also the holder
     made no ruling in that regard ?                                       of shares, which, according to that which the Court of
                                                                           Justice held in particular in its judgment of 22 June 1994
2 . ( a ) Must Article 27 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention be              in Case C-333/91 Satam SA, fall outside the scope of
           interpreted as precluding recognition of a judgment             value added tax, can the input tax charged to that
           given in another Contracting State where the                    taxable person be deducted in full or is the input tax
           defendant to the relevant proceedings was not                   relating to the possession of the shares debarred from
           validly represented and had no knowledge of the                 being deducted ?
           proceedings, even if he later had cognizance of the
           judgment which was given and availed himself in             4 . If question 3 must be answered in the latter sense,
           that regard of none of the legal remedies afforded              according to what yardstick must be the amount
           by the procedural law of the State in which                     disqualified from deduction be calculated ?
           judgment was given ?
     ( b ) Is it relevant in this connection that the time within
           which the legal remedy must be applied is one
           month from the day on which the defendant has
           cognizance of the judgment which has been                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
           given ?                                                     Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       3 March 1995 in the case of Intercod Sri v. Amministrazione
3 . Must Article 27 (2 ) of the Brussels Convention be                                    delle Finanze dello Stato
     interpreted as meaning that that provision is also                                        ( Case C-81/95 )
     applicable in a case in which, although the defendant
     was not declared to be in default of appearance , the                                       ( 95/C 119/20 )
     document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent
     document was not duly served on or notified to him in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sufficient time and the defendant was not lawfully                European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     represented in the proceedings ?                                  Genova , Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First
                                                                       Civil Section ), of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 November 2001 in Case C-366/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Joseph Griesmar v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie and Ministre de la Fonction publique, de la Réforme de l'État et de la Décentralisation (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — French civil and military retirement pension scheme — Service credit for children awarded to female civil servants — Whether permissible in the light of Article 6(3) of the Agreement on Social Policy or the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC)

text:
C 84/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 6 December 2001                                                       of 29 November 2001
in Case C-353/99 P: Council of the European Union v                      in Case C-366/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                  Heidi Hautala and Others (1)                           from the Conseil d’État): Joseph Griesmar v Ministre de
                                                                         l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie and Ministre de
                                                                         la Fonction publique, de la Réforme de l’État et de la
(Appeal — Public right of access to Council documents —                                          Décentralisation (1)
Council Decision 93/731/EC — Exceptions to access to
documents — Protection of the public interest concerning
           international relations — Partial access)
                                                                         (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
                                                                         Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117
                                                                         to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles
                         (2002/C 84/13)
                                                                         136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — French civil
                                                                         and military retirement pension scheme — Service credit
                                                                         for children awarded to female civil servants — Whether
                   (Language of the case: English)                       permissible in the light of Article 6(3) of the Agreement on
                                                                              Social Policy or the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/14)
In Case C-353/99 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
J. Aussant, G. Maganza and M. Bauer), supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                      (Language of the case: French)
Communities (First Chamber) of 19 July 1999 in Case T-14/98
Hautala v Council [1999] ECR II-2489, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parliament (Lawyers:                                  in the European Court Reports)
O.W. Brouwer and T. Janssens), supported by Kingdom of
Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), and by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins and H. Davies),
Republic of Finland, (Agents: first H. Rotkirch and then
T. Pynnä), Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) and French
Republic — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,             In Case C-366/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr               EC from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) for a
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha           court between Joseph Griesmar and Ministre de l’Économie,
Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                    des Finances et de l’Industrie and Ministre de la Fonction
P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                 publique, de la Réforme de l’État et de la Décentralisation —
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Decem-            on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
ber 2001, in which it:                                                   (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
                                                                         Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Article 6(3) of the Agreement on
                                                                         Social Policy (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 91) and Council Directive
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                              79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implemen-
                                                                         tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                                                                         in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — the Court,
2.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;         composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
                                                                         F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
                                                                         Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathe-
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Denmark, the
                                                                         let, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the
                                                                         S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
      Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their
                                                                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 November 2001, in
      own costs.
                                                                         which it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                              Pensions provided under a scheme such as the French retirement
                                                                         scheme for civil servants fall within the scope of Article 119 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
                                                                         by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC).
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 84/9
Notwithstanding what is provided in Article 6(3) of the Agreement           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to
on Social Policy, a provision such as Article L. 12(b) of the French              transpose in full Article 7(3) of Council Directive 93/13/CEE
Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code infringes the principle               of 5 December 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,
of equal pay inasmuch as it excludes male civil servants who are able             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
to prove that they assumed the task of bringing up their children                 Directive;
from entitlement to the credit which it introduces for the calculation
of retirement pensions.                                                     2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 24 January 2002                                                         of 6 December 2001
in Case C-372/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                                               European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
Directive 93/13/CEE — Unfair terms in contracts concluded                               — Fruit and vegetables — Arable crops)
with consumers — Means to prevent the use of those clauses)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/16)
                            (2002/C 84/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-372/99, Commission of the European Communities                    In Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos
(agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (agents: initially               and I.-K. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communi-
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri and, subsequently, U. Leanza,             ties (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) — application for partial
assisted by G. de Bellis): Application for a declaration that, by           annulment of Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July
failing to adopt the measures necessary to:                                 1999 amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of
                                                                            the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                            expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
—      apply the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
       5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ               L 226, p. 26) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
       1993 L 95, p. 29) to all contracts concluded between                 P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward,
       consumers and sellers or suppliers;                                  A. La Pergola and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
                                                                            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
—      transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that directive,         has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:
       and
—      transpose in full Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of that directive,          1.    Dismisses the application;
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
       under that directive,                                                2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola,                  (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: R. Grass, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-136/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Conseil d'Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth and Eighth Sub-Sections) by order of that court of 5 March 1999 in the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de l'Economie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena

text:
C 188/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Does European law require a period of child-rearing under                  Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
German law prior to 1 January 1986 to be taken into account                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
if the child was in fact raised in another Member State (in this
case France) but the parent who brought the child up was
                                                                                (Case C-137/99)
engaged in occupational activity as a cross-border worker
subject to compulsory insurance in the Federal Republic of
Germany until the start of the maternal protection period and                                        (1999/C 188/37)
after the end of her maternity leave as well?
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its legal Service,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth                 1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
and Eighth Sub-Sections) by order of that court of 5 March                      administrative provisions required to comply with Council
1999 in the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de                          Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending and
l’Economie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di                        consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure
                               Siena                                            financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
                                                                                animals and certain animal products and amending Direc-
                                                                                tives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, for the protection of
                         (Case C-136/99)                                        animals during transportation, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;
                         (1999/C 188/36)
                                                                           2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the French Conseil                     Pleas in law and main arguments
d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth and Eighth
Sub-Sections) of 5 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in               The Member States are required by the binding character of
the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de l’Economie et               the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena.                          Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
                                                                           into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for
                                                                           that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
The French Conseil d’Etat is asking the Court of Justice to rule           to the Commission. That period expired on 1 July 1997
on the question whether or not the provisions of the Eighth                without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 (1)have                   Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
the effect of granting to taxable persons established in a                 into national law.
Member State of the Community where they are taxed only on
a part of their turnover a right to a partial refund of the tax            (1) OJ No L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
charged in another Member State in respect of goods or
services which they have used in order to carry out, in the
State in which they are established, transactions of which some
are not taxed. If they do, to what method of determining the
portion of refundable tax do those provisions refer, and, in
particular, is that portion to be determined according to the
rules applicable in the State where the taxable person is
established, or according to the rules in force in the State
required to make the refund?                                               Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on
    the harmonisation of the 1aws of the Member States relating to                                   (Case C-138/99)
    turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax
    to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country
    (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).                                                                          (1999/C 188/38)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European


title: Case T-320/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2005 — Dionyssopoulou v Council (Officials — Invalidity pension — Correction coefficient — Meaning of ‘residence’ — United Kingdom)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2005 — Dionyssopoulou v Council
   (Case T-320/04) (1)

   (Officials - Invalidity pension - Correction coefficient - Meaning of ‘residence’ - United Kingdom)
   (2005/C 257/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:

      Applicant: Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou (represented by: C. Quackels and M.-C. Gautier, lawyers).

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Sims and I. Diez Parra, acting as Agents).
   Application for:
   Annulment of the Council's decision of 12 December 2003 applying the correction coefficient for Greece to the applicant's pension, and damages.
   Operative part of the judgment:
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders both parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273 of 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-292/99: Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/11
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) set aside the contested order in so far as it dismisses the
    claims under Article 173 of the Treaty;                                                     (Case C-292/99)
(2) allow the appellant’s claim (1);
                                                                                (1999/C 281/22)
(3) alternatively, in the event that the Court accepts the appeal,
    examine the case and rule on the unresolved points of the           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
    application, having regard to the principle of the essential        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 August
    need to ensure the impartiality of the court seised of the          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    master, and, principally, on the validity of the provisions         represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal
    of Council Regulation 684/92 of 16 March 1992 (2);                  Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
(4) order the Commission to pay all the costs, both of the
    proceedings at first instance and of the proceedings before
    the Court of Justice.                                               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to draw up management plans
                                                                            either for the whole of its territory or for all waste, and by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             failing to include a chapter relating to packaging waste in
                                                                            all the waste plans adopted, the French Republic has failed
                                                                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive
— Distortion of the facts by virtue of the legal characterisation           75/442/EEC on waste (1), as amended by Directive
    applied to them, and of the evidence: the contested order               91/156/EEC (2), Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC on
    distorted the concept of acts producing binding effects for             hazardous waste (3) and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC
    the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the              on packaging and packaging waste (4);
    EC Treaty by taking the view that the contested decision
    (in the form of a letter stating that no action was to be
                                                                        — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    taken on the complaint) did not involve measures which
    might affect the appellant’s legal situation;
— Contravention of the principle of complete legal certainty,
    by means of Article 234 EC: the contested order wrongly             Pleas in law and main arguments
    finds that the appellant should have pleaded the illegality
    of Regulation No 684/92 before the national court;                  — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (as
                                                                            amended) and of Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC:
— Distortion of the nature of the application: it was wrongly               twelve of the one hundred French départements do not have
    held in the contested order that the actions for annulment              a ‘departmental plan for the elimination of domestic and
    were intended, in substance, to obtain a declaration that               related waste’ as provided for by the French legislation
    the French State had failed to comply with its Treaty                   transposing the abovementioned directives, and six of the
    obligations, whereas, in reality, they were principally                 twenty six French regions do not have a ‘regional plan for
    directed against the conduct of undertakings supported by               the elimination of waste other than domestic and related
    the French authorities which were engaged in practices                  waste’.
    contrary to Community competition law, analogous to
    those referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68            — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (as
    in the field of transport by road.                                      amended) and of Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC: the
                                                                            existing waste management plans do not cover all of
                                                                            the waste which is the subject of the abovementioned
                                                                            directives. Thus, most of the regional plans do not take
                                                                            into account PCBs (the French Government seeks to justify
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998, pp. 25 and 26.
(2) OJ L 74 of 20.3.1992, p. 1.                                             this by citing the imminent transposition of Directive
                                                                            96/59/EC); the ‘schemes for the elimination of hospital
                                                                            waste’ do not constitute plans for the implementation of
                                                                            the requirements laid down by Community law, and the
                                                                            six regions possessing such plans are not therefore covered
                                                                            by a plan relating to that category of waste; moreover, in
                                                                            18 départements ‘special domestic waste’ is not covered by
                                                                            either a regional or a departmental plan.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
— Infringement of Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC: the              preliminary ruling in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate
     existing management plans do not contain any specific           against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. Farmer 3) C.J. Burley
     chapter relating to packaging waste.                            and 4) B. Denman on the following question:
                                                                     Are the requirements in Articles 15(2) and (3) of Council
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.                                   Regulation 3821/85 (1) for a driver to record ‘all other periods
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
( 3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.                                  of work’ and ‘breaks in work and daily rest periods’ on the
( 4) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                  vehicle record sheet to be construed so that those terms
                                                                     include:
                                                                     (i) a period of time spent travelling to take over a vehicle
                                                                           which is subject to the requirement to install and use
                                                                           vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out
                                                                           in Category A above i.e.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nottingham                       a) time spent travelling pursuant to the instructions of
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), by order of that                          the employer or
court of 30 June 1999, in the case of the Vehicle
Inspectorate against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J.                   b) time (forming part of the daily or weekly rest period
            Farmer 3) C.J. Burley and 4) B. Denman                             following the last period of work) during which the
                                                                               employee travels at a time and in a manner of his own
                                                                               choosing.
                         (Case C-297/99)
                                                                     (ii) a period of time spent performing driving or other duties
                         (1999/C 281/23)                                   which are exempt from the requirement to install and use
                                                                           vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     under Category B above.
European Communities by an order of the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) of 30 June 1999, which           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on
was received at the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for                  recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.85, p. 8).


title: Case C-296/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil (Slovenia) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil (Slovenia) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Medisanus d.o.o. v Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota
   (Case C-296/15)
   (2015/C 346/02)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Državna revizijska komisija za revizijo postopkov oddaje javnih naročil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Medisanus d.o.o.

      Defendant: Splošna Bolnišnica Murska Sobota

      Question referred

               1)

               Must Directive 2004/18/EC (1), in particular Article 23(2), Article 23(8) and Article 2 thereof, read in conjunction with

                           —

                           Directive 2001/83/EC (2), in particular Article 83 thereof,

                           —

                           Directive 2002/98/EC (3), in particular Article 4(2) thereof,

                           —

                           the TFEU, in particular Article 18 thereof,

         be interpreted as precluding a specification that industrially manufactured medicinal products must be ‘obtained from Slovenian plasma’, (a specification based on the domestic legislation of the Republic of Slovenia, namely Article 6(71) of the ZZdr-2)?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

      (3)  Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (OJ 2003 L 33, p. 30).


title: Case C-222/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — MIP-TS OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — MIP-TS OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna
   (Case C-222/16)
   (2016/C 243/22)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: MIP-TS OOD

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

      Question referred

   Does the scope of Article 1(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 of 3 August 2011 include the importation of fibreglass open mesh fabrics, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, currently classified under CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC codes 7019 51 00 10 and 7019 59 00 10), in respect of which those goods were declared under the procedure ‘release for free circulation and end use’ on 10 April 2012 as originating in Thailand and shipped from that country, whereas in fact they originated in the People’s Republic of China, as established within the framework of OLAF’s investigation procedure and report carried out under Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council?