title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 In Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00: Italian Republic and SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Decision 2000/536/EC — State aid granted to Seleco SpA)

text:
21.6.2003                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 146/1
                                                                            I
                                                                      (Information)
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    dismisses the remainder of the applcation;
                                                                                3.    orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                              of 8 May 2003                                     (1 ) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
in Case C-349/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                      European Communities ( 1)
          (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 146/01)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                      (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                      of 8 May 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          In Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00: Italian Republic
                      in the European Court Reports)                            and SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (Action for annulment — Decision 2000/536/EC — State
In Case C-349/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                                         aid granted to Seleco SpA)
de) v Commission of the European Communites (Agent:
X. Lewis, with M. Carro) — application for the annulment, in
                                                                                (2003/C 146/02)
so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, of Commission
Decision 97/608/EC of 30 July 1997 amending Decision 97/
333/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 245, p. 20) — the Court                                          in the European Court Reports)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,                     In Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00, Italian Republic
Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                          (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) and SIM 2
                                                                                Multimedia SpA (represented by A. Vianello) v Commission of
1.    annuls Commission Decision 97/608/EC of 30 July 1997                      the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet, assisted by
      amending Decision 97/333/EC on the clearance of the accounts              A. Abate and E. Cappelli): Application, in Case C-328/99, for
      presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure              annulment of Commission Decision 2000/536/EC of 2 June
      for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural            1999 concerning State aid granted to Seleco SpA (OJ 2000
      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as concerns,                L 227, p. 24) and, in Case C-399/00, for annulment of
      first, the flat-rate correction of 100 % of aid declared concerning       Article 2(1) of that decision, in so far as it requires the Italian
      the company N. R. Sevillano and, second, the flat-rate correction         Republic to take the necessary measures to recover the aid
      of 10 % of the total eligible expenses for the establishment of           granted to Seleco SpA from Seleco Mulimedia Srl with regard
      the oil register;                                                         to the part not recoverable from the latter, the Court (Sixth
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 —    by failing to adopt provisions by which the competent
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                           authority, before granting a permit to undertakings which
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and                                regenerate waste oils or use them as fuel, may satisfy itself
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-                        that health is appropriately protected where waste oils
eral; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 are used as fuel and that the best available technology not
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                                      entailing excessive cost is used where waste oils are
                                                                                regenerated or used as fuel;
1.    Annuls Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2000/536/EC
      of 2 June 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to Seleco
      SpA in so far as it provides that the Italian Republic is to take
      all the necessary measures to recover the aid referred to in
      Article 1 from Seleco Multimedia Srl with regard to the part
      not recoverable from Seleco SpA;                                       —    by failing to lay down that residues from the combustion
                                                                                of waste oils are to be disposed of in accordance with
                                                                                Article 9 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                                1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (OJ 1978 L 84,
                                                                                p. 43), and, from 27 June 1995, in accordance with
3.    Orders, in Case C-328/99, the Italian Republic and the                      Article 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own                    1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by
      costs;                                                                      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ
                                                                                1991 L 78, p. 32), which, pursuant to Council Directive
4.    Orders, in Case C-399/00, the Commission of the European                    91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste
      Communities to pay the costs.                                               (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive
                                                                                94/31/EC of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28),
                                                                                replaced Article 9 of Directive 78/319;
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             —    by not providing for periodical inspection of undertakings
                                                                                which regenerate waste oils or use them as fuel, or
                                                                                for examination of trends in the state of technical
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            development and/or of the environment with a view to
                                                                                revising, where necessary, permits granted to those
                                                                                undertakings;
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 10 April 2003
in Case C-392/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             —    by failing to convey to the Commission information
                 ties v Portuguese Republic ( 1)
                                                                                concerning technical expertise and the experience gained
                                                                                and results obtained through the application of measures
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            taken pursuant to Council Directive 75/439/EEC of
Directive 75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Incom-                            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975
                         plete transposition)                                     L 194, p. 23), as amended by Council Directive 87/101/
                                                                                EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43),
                           (2003/C 146/03)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                             the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       under Articles 6(2), 8(2)(a), 13 and 17 of Directive 75/439, as
                    in the European Court Reports)                           amended by Directive 87/101, and the first paragraph of
                                                                             Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty (now the first paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third
                                                                             paragraph of Article 249 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
In Case C-392/99, Commission of the European Communities                     composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
(Agents: L. Ström and M.A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic                    R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Col-
(Agents: L. Fernandes and M. Telles Romão): Application for a                neric, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
declaration that:                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-422/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Kappa Filter Systems v OHIM (THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/35

         Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Kappa Filter Systems v OHIM (THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS)
   (Case T-422/12)
   2012/C 355/74
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kappa Filter Systems GmbH (Steyr-Gleink, Austria) (represented by C. Hadeyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2012 in Case R 817/2012-4;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 010139749

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-459/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 — SGI v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 — SGI v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics
   (Case C-459/17)
   (2017/C 347/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SGI

      Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case F-90/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Ernotte v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Ernotte v Commission
   (Case F-90/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 317/95
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following an amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010, p. 41.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/37

         Removal from the register of Case C-273/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/106)
   By order of 17 February 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-273/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.08.2003.


               21.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/4

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Eidsivating lagmannsrett dated 31 March 2014 in the case of Enes Deveci and Others v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden
   (Case E-10/14)
   (2014/C 274/05)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 31 March 2014 from Eidsivating lagmannsrett (Eidsivating Court of Appeal, Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 April 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Enes Deveci and Others v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it consistent with Article 3(1), cf. Article 3(3), of Council Directive 2001/23/EC that the transferee undertaking assigns the individual employees covered by the transfer a place in a pay table set out in a collective agreement that applies in the transferee undertaking, with effect from a date after the collective agreement that applied in the transferor undertaking has expired, even if this results in a pay reduction for the individual employees?

               2.

               Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the collective agreement that applied to the employees of the transferor was still in force when the transferee’s collective agreement was made applicable to the employees covered by the transfer of the undertaking?

               3.

               Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the reduction in pay is significant or not?


title: Case C-126/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Orsolya Czakó v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Orsolya Czakó v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.
   (Case C-126/17)
   (2017/C 221/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Orsolya Czakó

      Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purpose of determining the amount of a loan agreement, does wording, such as that of Clauses I/1 and II/1 of the agreement at issue, which gives CHF 64 731 as an indicative amount, whilst mentioning a maximum amount of HUF 8 280 000 as the financing request, and which links determination of the amount of the loan agreement to a declaration having legal effect made by the party contracting with the consumer and to the data recorded in its books, meet the criteria of plain, intelligible language required by Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC? (1)

               2.

               If the determination made in Clauses I/1 and II/1 of the agreement does not correspond to the notion of plain, intelligible language and it is possible to examine whether the terms of those clauses are unfair, in the event that they are considered to be unfair, may the entire agreement be declared invalid, given that, in cases in which the subject matter of the agreement is not definite, the legal consequence under national law is the invalidity of the agreement in its entirety?

               3.

               In the event that the agreement may be declared valid, can the amount be determined in the manner most favourable to the consumer?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-491/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester) — Dolland & Aitchison Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Community Customs Code — Customs value — Customs import duties — Delivery of goods by a company established in Jersey and supplies of services effected in the United Kingdom)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/20

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester) — Dolland & Aitchison Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-491/04) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Customs value - Customs import duties - Delivery of goods by a company established in Jersey and supplies of services effected in the United Kingdom)
   (2006/C 131/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dolland & Aitchison Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — Interpretation of Articles 29 and 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value of imported goods — Contact lenses delivered by post by a company established in a third territory (the Island of Jersey) belonging to a company established in a Member State supplying examination, consultation and aftercare services for contact lenses
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, payment for the supply of specified services, such as examination, consultation or aftercare required in connection with contact lenses, and for specified goods, consisting of those lenses, the cleaning solutions and the soaking cases, constitutes as a whole the ‘transaction value’ within the meaning of Article 29 of the Customs Code and is, therefore, dutiable.

               2.

               The principles laid down in the CCP judgment (Case C-349/96) of 25 February 1999 cannot be used directly to determine the elements of the transaction to be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 29 of the Customs Code.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.


title: Case C-184/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 20 April 2012 — United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 20 April 2012 — United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV v Navigation Maritime Bulgare
   (Case C-184/12)
   2012/C 200/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies (UNAMAR) NV

      Respondent: Navigation Maritime Bulgare

      Question referred

   Having regard, not least, to the classification under Belgian law of the provisions at issue in this case (Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Belgian Law of 13 April 1995 relating to commercial agency contracts) as special mandatory rules of law within the terms of Article 7(2) of the Rome Convention, must Articles 3 and 7(2) of the Rome Convention, (1) read, as appropriate, in conjunction with Council Directive 86/653/EEC (2) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, be interpreted as meaning that special mandatory rules of law of the forum that offer wider protection than the minimum laid down by Directive 86/653/EEC may be applied to the contract, even if it appears that the law applicable to the contract is the law of another Member State of the European Union in which the minimum protection provided by Directive 86/653/EEC has also been implemented?

      (1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.


title: Case C-51/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of  13 January 2006  in Alberto Bianchi v De Robert Calzature S.R.L.

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of 13 January 2006 in Alberto Bianchi v De Robert Calzature S.R.L.
   (Case C-51/06)
   (2006/C 86/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Livorno of 13 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 1 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Alberto Bianchi and De Robert Calzature S.R.L. on the following questions:

               1)

               Given that the content of Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653 (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, can Article 19 be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible for the national implementing legislation to provide that the indemnity owed to an agent is payable under a collective agreement binding on its signatories, without regard to the conditions set out in the two indents of paragraph 2(a) of Article 17, and is calculated not in accordance with the criteria to be found in the directive but in accordance with the criteria set out in the collective economic agreement itself, with the result that, in many cases, the level of the indemnity to be paid would have to be significantly lower than the ceiling provided for in the directive.

               2)

               Should the indemnity be calculated individually by estimating the further commissions that the agent could have earned in the years following the termination of the contract on the basis of the new customers he has brought or the growth in business that he has generated, using the criterion of equity only to adjust the amount, or are other, composite methods of calculation permitted, which make greater use of the criterion of equity.

      (1)  OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17.


title: Case T-197/00: Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 285/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.10.2000
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision contained in document No 109172                  —      annul the Commission’s decision of 29 July 1999
      of 17 February 2000, notified to him by the President of                   imposing on him the penalty provided for in
      the European Parliament, rejecting his complaint against                   Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of officials, namely
      the rejection of his request for definitive termination of                 removal from post with a one-third reduction in his
      service;                                                                   retirement pension entitlement;
—     Order the defendant to pay the applicant total compen-              —      annul the Commission’s decision refusing to re-open the
      sation of PTE 50 000 000 (PTE 25 000 000 for impair-                       disciplinary procedure;
      ment of his health and PTE 25 000 000 for damage to
      his good name and professional reputation);                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a Commission official, was assigned to the
                                                                          European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The Com-
The applicant’s action is directed against the decision contained         mission alleges that he committed serious administrative
in document No 109172 of 17 February 2000, notified to                    irregularities and that he is guilty of serious misconduct in
him by the President of the European Parliament, rejecting his            respect of budgetary and financial management. Following a
complaint against the rejection of his request for definitive             disciplinary procedure, the Commission adopted the contested
termination of service.                                                   decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of removal
                                                                          from post with a one-third reduction in his retirement pension
                                                                          entitlement.
The applicant claims that the contested measure:
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
—     first, infringes the principle of sound administration by
                                                                          following pleas:
      which the Community institutions are bound;
                                                                          —      infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
—     second, infringes the principle of non-discrimination;                     the appointing authority did not observe the time-limit
                                                                                laid down by the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX
—     third, contains an inconsistent statement of the reasons                   to the Staff Regulations of Officials, two members of the
      on which it is based, contrary to the requirements of                      appointing authority failed to show the objectivity and
      Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of the European                        impartiality required and the applicant was unable to put
      Communities.                                                               forward at the appropriate time the grounds of his
                                                                                defence;
                                                                          —      a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                                mission was not legally entitled to level a charge against
                                                                                the applicant whilst at the same time taking the view that
                                                                                the former director of ECHO, who was the applicant’s
                                                                                direct hierarchical superior, had not failed in any way to
                                                                                fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations;
Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi against
       the Commission of the European Communities                         —      violation of the obligation to apply the principle of
                                                                                proportionality, inasmuch as the appointing authority
                         (Case T-197/00)                                         failed to take into consideration the exonerating evidence
                                                                                submitted by the applicant.
                         (2000/C 285/33)
                                                                          In addition, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
                                                                          refusing to re-open the disciplinary procedure against him. He
                                                                          maintains that the decision of the College of Commissioners
                    (Language of the case: French)                        finding that the former director of ECHO had not failed to
                                                                          fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 material new fact justifying his request for the matter to be
                                                                          resubmitted to the Disciplinary Board.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi,
residing at Roquefort-les-Pins (France), represented by Jean-
Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 14 March 2002 in Case C-132/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Aid to hemp production)

text:
18.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/3
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
                                                                                1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                                States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                        Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing
                                                                                ESP 1 355 544 657, representing the interest payable in the
                                                                                context of the additional levy on milk and milk-related products;
                                                                           3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                           21 March 2002
in Case C-130/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years
                          1995 and 1996)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          (2002/C 118/04)                                                              14 March 2002
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         in Case C-132/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
                                                                                — Aid to hemp production)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/05)
In Case C-130/99, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Guerra Fernández): Application for partial annulment of                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission Decision 1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34) and Commission Decision
1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 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              In Case C-132/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. A.
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999                  Fierstra and J. van Bakel), supported by Kingdom of Spain
L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, the           (Agent: M. López-Monı́s Gallego) v Commission of the Euro-
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                pean Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-               Hauwaert): Application for partial annulment of Commission
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March             of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
2002, in which it:                                                         the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                           European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ 1999
                                                                           L 61, p. 37), in so far as it requires a correction of 50 % of the
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/186/EC of 3 February                 expenditure declared by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in
      1999 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure          respect of hemp production aid, namely a correction of
      incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of         NLG 117 277, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
      (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing            A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
      the expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain before              D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      12 March 1996 in respect of production aid for olive oil;            has given a judgment on 14 March 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           (1) by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
                                                                                implement Articles 4(1), second subparagraph, 4(2), 7,
                                                                                11 and 14 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;                   1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
                                                                                and other evidence of formal qualifications in architec-
                                                                                ture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.                        of the right of establishment and freedom to provide
                                                                                services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15), as amended by Council
                                                                                Directive 86/17/EEC of 27 January 1986 amending, on
                                                                                account of the accession of Portugal, Directive 85/384
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                       (OJ 1986 L 27, p. 71, and — corrigendum — L 87,
                                                                                p. 36);
                                                                           (2) by adopting
                                                                                —     Article 4(2)(a) of Legislative Decree No 129 of the
                                                                                President of the Republic of 27 January 1992
                                                                                (GURI No 41 of 19 February 1992, p. 18) and
                                                                                Article 4(1)(a) of Decree No 776 of the Minister
                                                                                for Universities and Scientific and Technological
                                                                                Research of 10 June 1994 (GURI No 234 of
                                                                                6 October 1995, p. 3), which impose a general
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                obligation to produce the original diploma or a
                                                                                certified copy thereof,
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                       —     Article 4(2)(c) of Decree No 129/92 and
                                                                                Article 4(1)(c) of Decree No 776/94, which impose
                                                                                a general obligation to produce a certificate of
                                                                                nationality,
                           21 March 2002
                                                                                —     Article 4(3) of Decree No 129/92 and Article 10 of
                                                                                Decree No 776/94, which require as a matter of
in Case C-298/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                 course an official translation of documents,
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                —     Article 11(1)(c) and (d) of Decree No 129/92, which
                                                                                extends the validity of certificates beyond 5 August
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                1987;
Directive 85/384/EEC — Mutual recognition of formal
qualifications in architecture — Access to the profession of
architect — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, afteramend-                  (3) by prohibiting architects providing services in Italy from
                       ment, Article 49 EC))                                    having an infrastructure in Italy (Article 9(1) of Decree
                                                                                No 129/92);
                                                                           (4) by requiring architects providing services to register with
                          (2002/C 118/06)
                                                                                the local provincial council of the professional body for
                                                                                architects (Article 9(3) of Decree No 129/92 and
                                                                                Articles 7 and 8 of Decree No 776/94) in a manner
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                             contrary to Article 22 of Directive 85/384, and
                                                                           (5) by applying Article 4(6) to 4(8) of Decree No 129/92 in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          a manner contrary to Article 20(1) of Directive 85/384,
                   in the European Court Reports)                               the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 12, 20, 22, 27 and 31 of Directive 85/384
                                                                                and, in respect of point 3 above, under Article 59 of the
                                                                                EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC),
                                                                           the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
In Case C-298/99, Commission of the European Communities                   the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
(Agents: E. Traversa and E. Montaguti) v Italian Republic                  Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello): Application for a               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
declaration that:                                                          a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-133/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG v Ritrama SpA (Area of freedom, security and justice — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Action for a negative declaration ( «negative Feststellungsklage» ) — Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected, before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act allegedly occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG v Ritrama SpA
   (Case C-133/11) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Action for a negative declaration («negative Feststellungsklage») - Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected, before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act allegedly occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict)
   2012/C 399/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG

      Defendant: Ritrama SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of point (3) of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Action for a negative declaration (negative Feststellungsklage) — Whether a person who may have committed a harmful act may bring the person potentially adversely affected before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Point (3) of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict falls within the scope of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case T-229/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúzcoa, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331/31
4/1998 of 2 December 1998, which provide for a tax credit               Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
of 45 % of the investment in new fixed material assets in               Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya,
excess of ESP 2 500 million (EUR 15 025 303 ) made by                   and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
undertakings in the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya.                   Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                           (Case T-231/01)
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco —                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                   European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                        rio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and
                         (Case T-229/01)                                the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
                                                                        Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.
                         (2001/C 331/50)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 3 of that decision,
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
rio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Vasco, Guipúzcoa (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón,
lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision,
                                                                        The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)
                                                                        1763 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        common market the tax reductions arising from Article 26 of
                                                                        Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 3/1996 of 26 June 1996, on
                                                                        corporation tax, which provides for a reduction of 99 %,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         75 %, 50 % and 25 % of the basis for assessment of the
                                                                        aforementioned tax applicable during the four first tax years
                                                                        for undertakings which set up business in the Territorio
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)                      Histórico de Vizcaya with effect from the entry into force of
1764 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the              the Law, provided that they have disbursed capital amounting
common market the tax reductions arising from the 10th                  to more than ESP 20 million (EUR 120 202 ), invest more
addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1997 of                     than ESP 80 million (EUR 430 810 ) and create more than
22 December 1997, which provides for a tax credit of 45 % of            10 new jobs.
the investment in new fixed material assets in excess of
ESP 2 500 million (EUR 15025303) made by undertakings in
the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa.
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                        applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                  T-227/01.
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.


title: Case F-47/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 February 2012 — Zur Oven-Krockhaus v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 February 2012 — Zur Oven-Krockhaus v Commission
   (Case F-47/11) (1)

   2012/C 126/53
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.11, p. 56.


title: Case C-453/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Berlin by decision of that court of 31 August 2004 in the commercial register matter of innoventif Limited, intervener: Die Innoventif Limited

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Berlin by decision of that court of 31 August 2004 in the commercial register matter of innoventif Limited, intervener: Die Innoventif Limited
   (Case C-453/04)
   (2005/C 6/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court) (Berlin) of 31 August 2004 received at the Court Registry on 28 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the commercial register matter of innoventif Limited, intervener: Die innoventif Limited on the following question:
   Is it consistent with the freedom of establishment for companies provided for by Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC for the registration of a branch set up in the Federal Republic of Germany of a share company which has its registered office in the United Kingdom to be made subject to the payment of an advance calculated on the basis of the anticipated cost of the publication of the objects of the company as set out in the relevant articles of the Memorandum of Association?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-412/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten in Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB v Riksskatteverket (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2) — Provision of meals in a company canteen for a price lower than the cost price — Taxable amount)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-412/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten in Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB v Riksskatteverket (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2) - Provision of meals in a company canteen for a price lower than the cost price - Taxable amount)
   (2005/C 57/21)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-412/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden), made by decision of 29 September 2003, received at the Court on 3 October 2003, in the proceedings between Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB and Riksskatteverket – the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it ruled:
   Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as precluding a national rule whereby transactions in respect of which an actual consideration is paid are regarded as an application of goods or services for private use, even where that consideration is less than the cost price of the goods or services supplied.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-612/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/34

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — Treofan Holdings and Treofan Germany v Commission
   (Case T-612/11)
   2012/C 32/70
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Treofan Holdings GmbH (Raunheim, Germany) and Treofan Germany GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. de Weerth, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011, C(2011) 275, as corrected by C(2011) 2608, in the procedure on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporation tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: the deduction of losses is not an aid granted through State resources
               With regard to this plea, the applicants submit inter alia, that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty does not confer a financial advantage, but rather maintains a company’s already existing financial position in the form of the carry forward of losses. The applicants therefore take the view that there is no financing through State resources.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity in the absence of an exception to the relevant reference system
               The applicants submit in that regard that the relevant reference system is the general rules on the deduction of losses for corporations (Paragraph 10d of the German Law on Income Tax in conjunction with Paragraph 8(1) of the KStG and Paragraph 10a of the German Law on Trade Tax) and that the limitation by Paragraph 8c of the KStG is merely an exception to that relevant reference system, which is in turn limited inter alia by the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses as a partial exception to that exception.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity as there is no differentiation between economic operators who are in a comparable factual and legal position as regards the objective pursued
               The applicants submit in this connection inter alia that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses benefits all taxable undertakings and does not favour either particular areas of business and sectors or undertakings of a particular size.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Absence of selectivity due to justification on the basis of the nature and general scheme of the tax system
               The applicants submit in that regard that the provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses is based on tax system specific reasons which comply with principles of constitutional law, such as taxation according to ability to pay, the prevention of excessive taxation and respect for the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU: Manifest errors of assessment on the basis of insufficient consideration of the position under German tax law
               The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission failed to have regard to the provisions of German tax law on deduction of losses.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that there is a legitimate expectation under EU law
               The applicants submit in this connection inter alia that the tax privileges in question upon acquisitions of interests together with deductions of losses were raised by the Commission for the first time in a formal investigation procedure and that this is an extraordinary situation, which is not discernible to the legislature, tax courts and the tax authorities and therefore is also not discernible to undertakings even if they have been thoroughly and competently advised.


title: Case C-153/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2011 — OOD Klub v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 March 2011 — OOD Klub v Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)
   (Case C-153/11)
   2011/C 186/21
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OOD Klub

      Defendant: Director of the Varna Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ at the Central Office of the National Revenue Agency (Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 168(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that — once a taxable person has exercised his option and allocated property constituting capital goods to his business assets — it must be presumed (that is to say assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary), that these goods are used for the purposes of taxable transactions effected by the taxable person?

               2.

               Is Article 168(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the right of deduction on the purchase of an immovable property which is allocated to the business assets of a taxable person arises immediately in the tax period in which the tax became due, regardless of the fact that the property cannot be used in view of the absence of approval for its commissioning as required by law?

               3.

               Is an administrative practice such as that of the Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite, according to which the right of deduction claimed by persons liable for value added tax on capital goods purchased by them is refused on the grounds that those goods are used for the private purposes of the owners of the companies, without value added tax being imposed on this use, consistent with the directive?

               4.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings does the company, namely the applicant, have a right of deduction on the purchase of an immovable property, namely a maisonette in Sofia?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1


title: Case C-57/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 9 February 2015 — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 9 February 2015 — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV
   (Case C-57/15)
   (2015/C 138/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: United Video Properties Inc.

      Respondent: Telenet NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive (1) preclude the Belgian legislation which offers courts the possibility of taking into account certain well-defined features specific to the case and which provides for a system of varying flat rates in respect of costs for the assistance of a lawyer?

               2.

               Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive preclude the case-law which states that the costs of a technical adviser are recoverable only in the event of fault (contractual or extra-contractual)?

      (1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).


title: Case T-432/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Vivendi v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/40

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Vivendi v Commission
   (Case T-432/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vivendi (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Struys, O. Fréget and J.-Y. Ollier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 2 July 2010 in Case COMP/C-1/39.653 — Vivendi & Iliad/France Télécom, by which the European Commission rejected Vivendi’s complaint of 2 March 2009 under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, relating to practices of France Télécom considered to be contrary to Article 102 of the TFEU;

               —

               An order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4730 of 2 July 2010 rejecting, for lack of Community interest, the complaint lodged by the applicant against France Télécom relating to its alleged abuse of a dominant position, in breach of Article 102 of the TFEU, on the French broadband and telephone subscription market, alleging that France Télécom practised structural discrimination in the tariffs for its wholesale supplies to the advantage of its retail division and maintained too high a tariff for recurrent access to the local loop.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward a number of pleas in law alleging, among other things:

               —

               errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and breaches of its duty to examine carefully damage by the practices complained of to the functioning of the internal market, on the ground that the Commission confined itself to (i) examining only the mean level of prices for broadband on retail markets without inquiring whether that level of prices was actually likely to reveal the practices complained of, and (ii) a subjective assessment of the obsolete nature of the provision of a telephone subscription service;

               —

               an insufficient statement of reasons, errors in law and of fact and manifest errors of assessment on the ground that the Commission concluded that the possibility of establishing the existence of an infringement was very limited, since the Commission:

                           —

                           did not seek to examine the question of the discriminatory character of the prices actually invoiced by reference to the services actually supplied and wrongly asserted that the preliminary investigation had not revealed any documentary or other evidence;

                           —

                           decided that the calculation method used by France Télécom to set its tariffs for access to the local loop was validated by the Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes (Electronic Communications and Postal Regulation Authority) (ARCEP) and considered that the fact that France Télécom had sent it erroneous information without seeking to correct it was irrelevant in view of the method used;

                           —

                           distorted the object of the eviction tests submitted by the applicant, which was to establish the effects of the practices complained of;

               —

               disregard of the guarantees which apply to the investigation of complaints and to decisions to take no action in respect of abuse of a dominant position, the applicant (i) not having been given immediate access to adverse documents or to the documents in the file and (ii) not having been given sufficient time to submit its comments on those documents.


title: Case F-66/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Saracco v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Leave on personal grounds — Maximum duration — Refusal to extend)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Saracco v ECB
   (Case F-66/09) (1)

   (Civil service - ECB staff - Leave on personal grounds - Maximum duration - Refusal to extend)
   2011/C 38/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberta Saracco (Arona, Italy) (represented by: F. Parrat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Malfrère, G. Nuvoli, Agents, and B Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the ECB’s decision refusing to extend the applicant’s leave on personal grounds.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Saracco to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 51.


title: Case C-380/10: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-380/10) (1)

   2011/C 211/44
   Language of the case: Swedish
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case T-42/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2012 — A. Loacker SpA v OHIM — Editrice Quadratum (QUADRATUM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark QUADRATUM — Earlier Community word mark LOACKER QUADRATINI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2012 — A. Loacker SpA v OHIM — Editrice Quadratum (QUADRATUM)
   (Case T-42/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark QUADRATUM - Earlier Community word mark LOACKER QUADRATINI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 26/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: A. Loacker SpA (Auna di Sotto, Italy) (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Sempio, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Editrice Quadratum SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Pezzoi, P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2008 (Case R 34/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between A. Loacker SpA and Editrice Quadratum SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders A. Loacker SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-488/04: Order of the President of the Court of  23 March 2006  — Galeries de Lisieux SA v Organic Recouvrement

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2006 — Galeries de Lisieux SA v Organic Recouvrement
   (Case C-488/04) (1)

   (2006/C 154/31)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


               13.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/20

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Stavanger tingrett dated 25 May 2007 in the case of Seabrokers AS v Den Norske Stat v/Skattedirektoratet
   (Case E-7/07)
   (2007/C 301/12)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 25 May 2007 from Stavanger tingrett (Stavanger District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Seabrokers AS v Den Norske Stat v/Skattedirektoratet, on the following questions:

               1.

                  Is it contrary to Article 4, 31 or 40 of the EEA Agreement to attribute, according to the principle of net income taxation, debt interest to the income abroad when calculating the maximum credit allowance?

               2.

                  Is it contrary to Article 4, 31 or 40 of the EEA Agreement to attribute, according to the principle of net income taxation, group contributions to the income abroad when calculating the maximum credit allowance?

               3.

                  Will the answer to question 1 and/or 2 be the same if the debt interest and/or the group contributions can only be linked to the business in Norway?


title: Case T-59/14: Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/24

         Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)
   (Case T-59/14)
   2014/C 129/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 706

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case T-319/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Grasso v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/11

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Grasso v Commission
   (Case T-319/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)
   2012/C 109/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Salvatore Grasso (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-147/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2015 — Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato S.r.l.

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2015 — Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato S.r.l.
   (Case C-147/15)
   (2015/C 205/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Provincia di Bari

      Respondent: Edilizia Mastrodonato S.r.l.

      Question referred

   Must Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that backfilling with waste — if carried out using waste other than extractive waste — must be subject to the legislation regarding waste set out in Directive 1999/31/EC (2) even when the operation does not consist of the disposal of waste but of recovery?

      (1)  Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC — Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15).

      (2)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1).


title: Case T-151/14: Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Vassiliou v Commission and ECB

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/32

         Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Vassiliou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-151/14)
   2014/C 159/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Costas Vassiliou (Kinshasa, Congo) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.


title: Case C-604/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Yahoo! UK Limited and Others (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Copyright — Football league fixture lists)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Yahoo! UK Limited and Others
   (Case C-604/10) (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Copyright - Football league fixture lists)
   2012/C 118/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Football Dataco Ltd, Football Association Premier League Ltd, Football League Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd

      Defendants: Yahoo! UK Ltd, Stan James (Abingdon) Ltd, Stan James plc, Enetpulse ApS

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal, United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 20) — Concept of ‘databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author’s own intellectual creation’ — Computerised catalogues of the football matches planned for the coming season

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘database’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive is protected by the copyright laid down by that directive provided that the selection or arrangement of the data which it contains amounts to an original expression of the creative freedom of its author, which is a matter for the national court to determine.
               As a consequence:

                           —

                           the intellectual effort and skill of creating that data are not relevant in order to assess the eligibility of that database for protection by that right;

                           —

                           it is irrelevant, for that purpose, whether or not the selection or arrangement of that data includes the addition of important significance to that data, and

                           —

                           the significant labour and skill required for setting up that database cannot as such justify such a protection if they do not express any originality in the selection or arrangement of the data which that database contains.

               2.

               Directive 96/9 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the transitional provision contained in Article 14(2) of that directive, it precludes national legislation which grants databases, as defined in Article 1(2) of the directive, copyright protection under conditions which are different to those set out in Article 3(1) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case C-148/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
   (Case C-148/15)
   (2015/C 213/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V.

      Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a system of fixed prices laid down by national law applicable to prescription-only medicinal products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU?

               2.

               If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:
               Is the system of fixed prices for prescription-only medicinal products justified under to Article 36 TFEU on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans if that system is the only means of ensuring a consistent supply of medicinal products to the population across the whole of Germany, in particular in rural areas?

               3.

               If the Court also answers Question 2 in the affirmative:
               What is the degree of judicial scrutiny required when determining whether the condition mentioned in Question 2 is in fact satisfied?


title: Case C-258/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(2) and Article 4(1) — Discrimination on grounds of age — Recruitment of police officers of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country restricted to candidates under 35 years of age — Concept of ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ — Objective pursued — Proportionality)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias
   (Case C-258/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2) and Article 4(1) - Discrimination on grounds of age - Recruitment of police officers of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country restricted to candidates under 35 years of age - Concept of ‘genuine and determining occupational requirement’ - Objective pursued - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 014/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gorka Salaberria Sorondo

      Defendant: Academia Vasca de Policía y Emergencias

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read together with Article 4(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that candidates for posts as police officers who are to perform all the operational duties incumbent on police officers must be under 35 years of age.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-26/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

         Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA
   (Case T-26/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/40)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA,

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal,

               —

               reserve the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:

               —

               the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have;

               —

               in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal, in any event, infringed EU law by failing to balance the respective interests and failing to limit the effects of its judgments.


title: Case T-79/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing — Allocation of sales quotas by geographic area — Allocation of customers — Exchange of individualised information — Proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Proportionality — Attenuating circumstances — Follow-my-leader role)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission
   (Case T-79/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing - Allocation of sales quotas by geographic area - Allocation of customers - Exchange of individualised information - Proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Proportionality - Attenuating circumstances - Follow-my-leader role)
   2012/C 6/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (Wieda, Germany) (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for amendment of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-163/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/28

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello
      (Case C-163/10)
      (2010/C 161/37)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Isernia

         Party to the main proceedings

      Aldo Patriciello

         Question referred

      Do the facts construed in abstracto as a criminal offence committed by Aldo Patriciello — a Member of the European Parliament, described in the indictment and in favour of whom the European Parliament adopted a decision on 5 May 2009 to support a defence of immunity — which is categorised as slander under Article 368 of the Penal Code correspond to the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties for the purposes of Article 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities?


title: Case C-161/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Cosimo Damiano Vino v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Cosimo Damiano Vino v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-161/11)
   2011/C 173/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cosimo Damiano Vino

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Does the general Community principle of non-discrimination and equality preclude national rules (such as that laid down by Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which introduced into the national legal order an ‘acausal’ case that places at a disadvantage employees of Poste Italiane SpA, and, in relation to that company, other undertakings in the same sector or in other sectors?

               (b)

               if the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, is the national court required to disapply (or not to apply) the national rules which are contrary to Community law?


title: Case C-452/08: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain)) — Emilia Flores Fanega v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Bolumburu S.A.

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/43

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain)) — Emilia Flores Fanega v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), Bolumburu S.A.
   (Case C-452/08) (1)

   2010/C 63/68

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.