title: Case F-94/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014  — ZZ v ECB

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/49

         Action brought on 15 September 2014 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-94/14)
   (2015/C 007/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Executive Board, adopted on 25 February 2014 and notified to the staff on 3 March 2014, not to grant the applicant an additional increase in salary for 2014;

               —

               annul the decision dismissing the special appeal dated 1 July 2014 and received on 7 July 2014;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department/DG-H not to consider or propose the applicant for an additional salary increase, notified implicitly by the decision of the Executive Board of 25 February 2014 and by the decision to dismiss the special appeal of 1 July 2014;

               —

               order compensation for the material damage consisting of the loss of an opportunity to obtain an additional salary increase in 2014 evaluated at EUR 51  962 or, alternatively, annulment of the procedure leading up to the decision of 25 February 2014 and the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for granting additional salary increases for 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5  000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F -81/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of  13 June 2006  — Maccanti v CESE

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2006 — Maccanti v CESE
   (Case F -81/05) (1)

   (2006/C 165/75)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-538/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of First Instance, Liège, Belgium) — Richard Lebrun and Marcelle Howet v Belgian State (Articles 92(1), 103(1), 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Examination of the conformity of a national provision with both European Union law and the national constitution — National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Requirement of link with European Union law — Clear absence of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/22

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of First Instance, Liège, Belgium) — Richard Lebrun and Marcelle Howet v Belgian State
      (Case C-538/10) (1)

      (Articles 92(1), 103(1), 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Examination of the conformity of a national provision with both European Union law and the national constitution - National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement of link with European Union law - Clear absence of jurisdiction of the Court)
      (2012/C 25/38)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Court of First Instance, Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Richard Lebrun and Marcelle Howet

         Defendant: Belgian State

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of First Instance, Liège — Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Prior obligation on national courts to refer matter to Constitutional Court where it supposes that national legislation may be in conflict with fundamental rights — Compliance with European Union law of the national provision requiring such a prior reference — Right of national courts to review compliance of national law with international treaties where the Constitutional Court has declared the national legislation at issue compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution

         Operative part of the order

      It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Court of First Instance, Liège, Belgium.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case C-581/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/15

         Action brought on 10 November 2015 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-581/15)
   (2016/C 027/19)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková, J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and failing to connect it to the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its application, the Commission puts forward the following arguments:
   The Czech Republic did not, by 30 June 2015, when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired, set up a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and did not connect it to the national electronic registers of the other Member States, as it should have done in accordance with Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (1).

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.


title: Case C-232/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Vercheval

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Vercheval
   (Case C-232/06)
   (2006/C 190/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour du travail de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Office national des pensions

      Defendant: Hélène Vercheval
   Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2)):
               Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
               If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation?

               2.

               With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))
               Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
               If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).


title: Case T-125/00: Action brought on 5 May 2000 by Joaquín López Madruga against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 211/22              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.7.2000
— Regardless of the decision given on the claim made in the              — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
    foregoing paragraph, require the European Commission to
    pay compensation to Miguel Angel Martı́n de Pablos, in
    accordance with Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    European Community, of EUR 12 000 by way of damages
    for the unjustified delay of 10 months;                              By the present action, the applicant seeks a declaration that
                                                                         the Court of Justice failed to fulfil its obligation to comply
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30
                                                                         September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court
                                                                         of Justice (1). That judgment annulled the decision of the Court
Contentions and principal arguments                                      of Justice rejecting the applicant’s request that her name be
                                                                         included in the list of persons who expressed an interest in
The applicant, a candidate in open competition COM/A/98                  being the subject of a decision terminating their service, as
organised by the Commission to draw up a reserve list of                 provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No
assistant administrators, objects to the decision of the selection       2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures
board not admitting him to the oral tests in that competition            to terminate the service of officials of the European Communi-
because he was not one of the 160 best candidates in the                 ties as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and
written tests. The applicant considers that the decision in              Sweden (2).
question is vitiated by the lack of a statement of reasons and
misuse of powers, in that it does not disclose either the                According to the applicant, the Court of Justice is obliged to
composition of the selection board or the identity of candidates         act, not only pursuant to Article 233 of the Treaty, but also
who passed and those who failed.                                         pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations (duty to give
                                                                         assistance). In her view, she could have brought proceedings
The applicant contends that the fact that the marks for the              before the Community judicature in respect of the Council’s
written tests were notified 10 months later than the date                decision not to adopt the proposal for a regulation providing
indicated in the timetable included in the convening notice for          for the Court to release staff, or seeking the inclusion of a
the competition is detrimental to him, since it prevented him            heading in the Court budget to cover the expense involved in
from holding a full-time post in the meantime and receiving              releasing staff.
the corresponding remuneration.
                                                                         (1) [1998] ECR-SC-IA-257 and ECR-SC-II-1579.
                                                                         (2) OJ No L 280 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López Madruga
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-115/00)
                                                                                (Case T-125/00)
                        (2000/C 211/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/47)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Christiane                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Chvatal, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang,            European Communities on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López
of the Luxembourg Bar.                                                   Madruga, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramón
                                                                         Iturriagagoitia.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 26 January
    2000, notified on 2 February 2000, rejecting the appli-              — annul in part the decision taken at first tacitly and,
    cant’s complaint;                                                         subsequently, by failing to reply to his request, in so far as
                                                                              it does not grant the applicant the right to transfer in full
— order the Court of Justice to pay compensation to the                       35 % of his net monthly emoluments to his bank account
    applicant in respect of the material damage suffered, as                  in the United Kingdom in order to meet university
    defined in paragraph 3 of the application;                                education costs incurred by his sons Diego and Javier;
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/23
— order the Commission to draw up corrected pay slips as                — In the alternative, annul the Commission Decision in so
    from October 1999 and to pay default interest the                        far as the Commission wrongly used as the basis of its
    increased amounts; and                                                   calculation of the demand for repayment a total amount
                                                                             of aid approved of DEM 1 246 900 000 (less an adjust-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     ment for DEM 10 500 000 competition aid not granted
                                                                             and DEM 27000 000 aid on closure) instead of the
                                                                             total amount of the operating aid actually granted (DEM
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              230 984 000) with previous demands for repayment (DEM
                                                                             83 000 000) being taken into account;
The applicant challenges the appointing authority’s refusal,
which took the form of failure to reply, to transfer 35 % of his        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
net salary to the account opened by him in the United
Kingdom in order to meet the university education costs of his
sons. The appointing authority has only acceded to the
applicant’s request to the extent of transferring 19 % of his           Pleas in law and main arguments
salary to the abovementioned account.
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the same
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that the following      as in Case T-227/99 (2) with the exception of the argument
have been infringed:                                                    concerning the irregular composition of the Commission.
— Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regula-
    tions and additional provisions;                                    (1) OJ L 120, 20.5.2000, p. 12.
                                                                        (2) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 27.
— the principle of proportionality,
— the principle of equal treatment,
— the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationa-
    lity.
The applicant also alleges misuse of powers and failure to
observe the obligation to state the grounds on which measures           Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello
are taken.                                                                  against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-135/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/49)
Action brought on 18 May 2000 by Kværner Warnow
Werft GmbH against the Commission of the European                                          (Language of the case: French)
                         Communities
                        (Case T-134/00)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 19 May
                                                                        2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by
                        (2000/C 211/48)                                 Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels
                                                                        Bar.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              — Annul the Commission decision to appoint another official
European Communities on 18 May 2000 by Kværner Warnow                        to post COM/069/99 IV/C1 ‘Telecommunications and
Werft GmbH of Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany, represented                       post, coordination of the information society’, being an
by Dr Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick                   A3 Head of Unit post;
Heller Löber, Brussels.
                                                                        — Annul the Commission decision not to accept the appli-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  cant’s application for post COM/069/99 IV/C1 ‘Telecom-
                                                                             munications and Post, coordination of the information
— Annul Commission Decision C (2000) 516 fin. of                             society’, being an A3 Head of Unit post, and all the
    15 February 2000 on aid granted by Germany to Kværner                    measures preparatory to that decision which themselves
    Warnow Werft GmbH (1),                                                   proved to be improper;


title: Case T-42/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission
   (Case T-42/08) (1)

   (2008/C 272/97)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-403/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Soufiane El Hassani v Minister Spraw Zagranicznych
   (Case C-403/16)
   (2016/C 383/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Soufiane El Hassani

      Respondent: Minister Spraw Zagranicznych

      Question referred

   Must Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), (1) having regard to recital 29 of the Visa Code and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to guarantee an effective remedy (appeal) before a court of law?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.


title: Case C-423/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 19/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25.1.2003
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, notwithstanding that the Appellant’s case is not based
                                                                         on an infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
                                                                         the Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           in law in any event (and failed to give adequate reasoning)
      12 September 2002 in case T-89/00;                                 when concluding in paragraph 57 of the judgment that the
                                                                         difference in legal basis for the application of anti-dumping
                                                                         duties against LAECs from the U.S.A. and Thailand on the one
2.    make an order that the costs of and occasioned by these            hand, and Japan on the other, was sufficient reason to
      proceedings, and those before the Court of First Instance,         render the principle of equal treatment inapplicable in the
      be borne by the Council;                                           circumstances of the present case.
3.    annul the last indent of Article 3 of Council Regulation
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 163, 10.06.2000, p. 32.
      (EC) No. 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating the
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 22, 27.01.2000, p. 1.
      anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain             (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
      large aluminium electrolytic capacitors (‘LAECs’) originat-             protection against dumped imports from countries not members
      ing in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) in so                of the European Community (OJ L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1).
      far as it does not state that the retroactive effect of this
      Regulation shall apply from 4 December 1997 onwards;
      or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of
      First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly
substituted its own understanding for what the Appellant had
claimed by stating in paragraph 48 of the judgment that the                                        (Case C-423/02)
Appellant had ‘essentially alleged an error in law with respect
to the application of the principle of equal treatment in the
Contested Regulation’. Rather, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                (2003/C 19/32)
should have held that the Appellant had essentially alleged an
error in law with respect to the application of the principle of
non discrimination, as laid down in Article 9(5) of the Basic
Anti-Dumping Regulation (‘BR’) ( 3), to the facts of the present
case. Had the Court of First Instance properly considered the
application of the principle of non discrimination laid down             An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
in Article 9(5) BR, rather than concentrating on the principle of        Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
equal treatment, it should have reached a different conclusion.          the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in law by concluding in paragraph 58 of the judgment
in relation to Article 9(5) BR that:
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
(i)   Article 9(5) BR relates only to the initial imposition of          1)     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      anti-dumping duties;                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
                                                                                Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
                                                                                landfill of waste (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
(ii)  Article 9(5) BR does not necessarily apply to the mainten-                such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
      ance in force of anti-dumping duties, pursuant to                         of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Article 11(2) BR; and                                                     fully its obligations under Article 18 of that Directive;
(iii) Article 9(5) BR may be applied at the discretion of the            2)     order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Council and as such is a non-mandatory rule of law.                       Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 19/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities          Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
necessary for incorporating Directive 1999/31/EC into dom-               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
estic law so that such process is complete within the time limit         period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
laid down, irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and            expired on 1 January 1990 without the United Kingdom of
to inform the Commission thereof.                                        Great Britain and Northern Ireland having enacted the pro-
                                                                         visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                         the conclusions of the Commission.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom              (1 ) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 23.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 42, 12.02.1987, p. 43.
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.
( 1) OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                         trative (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) by judgment of
                                                                         that Court of 21 November 2002 in the appeal brought
                                                                         by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye, against the Minister
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-                                   for Public Service and Administrative Reform
mission of the European Communities against the United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-425/02)
                         (Case C-424/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/34)
                          (2003/C 19/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                European Communities by order of the Cour Administrative
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of              (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) (Administrative Court, Grand
the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the                      Duchy of Luxembourg) of 21 November 2002, received at the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   Court Registry on 25 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling
X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an                in the appeal brought by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       against the Minister for Public Service and Administrative
                                                                         Reform on the following question:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Having regard to the provisions of Directives 77/187/EEC (1),
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             98/50/EC (2) and 2001/23/EC (3) identified herein, in the event
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              of the transfer of an undertaking from a non-profit-making
      Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC requiring             association, which is a legal person under private law, to the
      Member States to take the measures necessary to give               State as transferee, is it permissible for the transferor’s rights
      priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration (1),      and obligations to be taken over only in so far as they are
      as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC on waste oils ( 2) or,          compatible with the State’s own rules of public law, in
      in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the          particular in the area of remuneration, where the detailed
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                provisions and amounts of compensation are laid down by
      Northern Ireland has failed to fully fulfil its obligations        grand ducal regulation, bearing in mind that the status of
      under that Directive;                                              public-sector employee confers legal benefits in the areas of,
                                                                         inter alia, career development and job stability on the staff
2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             concerned, and that, in the event of disagreement as regards
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          ‘substantial changes’ to the employment relationship within


title: Case T-174/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/19

         Appeal brought on 25 March 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11, BO v Commission
   (Case T-174/13 P)
   2013/C 164/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: BO (Amman, Jordan)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2013 in Case F-27/11 BO v Commission;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by BO in Case F-27/11, ordering him to pay the costs of those proceedings;

               —

               decide that each of the parties are to bear their own costs relating to the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 19 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of disease and of point 2.5 of Chapter 12, entitled ‘Transport costs’, of Title II of the Commission Decision of 2 July 2007 laying down general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the CST failed to have regard to the strict nature of the exclusion of reimbursement of transport costs laid down by that latter provision.


title: Case T -410/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Vitaminaqua Ltd v OHIM

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/34

         Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Vitaminaqua Ltd v OHIM
   (Case T -410/12)
   2012/C 355/71
   Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting application No 8338592 for registration of the figurative mark ‘vitaminaqua’ (Case R 997/2011-1) and order the registration of the trade mark in accordance with the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM, thereby conferring protection as a trade mark on the sign;

               —

               Order the defendant or the other party to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vitaminaqua Ltd.

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘vitaminaqua’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (application for registration No 8 338 592).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Energy Brands, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia the national word mark ‘VITAMINWATER’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division set aside and application for registration as a Community trade mark rejected.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-111/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/72

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-111/10)
   2010/C 113/106
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz and P. Moura Pinheiro, lawyers, and L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   On 3 March 2010 the Portuguese Republic brought an action pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union against the European Commission for annulment of European Commission Decision C(2009) 10624 of 21 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted through the European Regional Development Fund to the Operational Programme ‘Modernisation of the economic fabric’ CCI: 1994 PT 16 1 PO 004 (ex ERDF ref. 94.12.09.004), in so far as it concerns the financing of the Closed Tourist Real Property Investment Fund (FIIT).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   A real property investment fund, set up by the authorities following approval by the European Commission of the Community support framework (CSF II) for action by the structural funds in regions concerned by Objective 1, for the period from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1999, has been adapted in order to carry out the tasks of the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER).
   Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the scope of the ERDF, (1) provides that that fund is to participate in the development of indigenous potential in the regions by measures improving access of small and medium-sized enterprises [sic] to the capital market. In the same way as the provision of guarantees and equity participation, activities mentioned merely by way of example in Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, a real property investment fund is a funding mechanism appropriate for the purpose of encouraging and developing the activities of small and medium-sized undertakings.
   The FIIT is intended, in particular, to fund small and medium-sized undertakings active in the tourism sector in Portugal, which generally own significant real property assets and encounter difficulties in access to the sources of finance available on the market.
   The FIIT’s activities during the period concerned played a part in supporting the development and modernisation of supply in the tourism sector in Portugal, by means of purchasing tourist establishments and then renting them to small and medium-sized undertakings.
   The FIIT’s activities are in strict keeping with the European Commission’s Decision C(94) 464 approving, within the framework of CSF II, the operational programme ‘Modernisation of the economic fabric’ and Subprogramme 4 ‘Tourism and cultural heritage’. That decision provided for the creation of a tourism investment fund whose sphere of priority action included, in particular, the financial restructuring, modernisation and resizing of hotels.
   The European Commission has failed to observe the principle audi alteram partem inasmuch as it was only in the contested decision that it raised the issue of the alleged failure to show deficiencies in the market for the financing of the small and medium-sized undertakings supported by the FIIT, and that it criticised the national authorities for supposedly failing to analyse sufficiently the economic viability of those undertakings, doing no more than refinance their debts.
   The contested decision fails to observe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by concluding that the FIIT project was ineligible for ERDF cofinancing, for the European Commission, while monitoring the programme, acted in such a way as to engender in the Portuguese authorities the firm and legitimate conviction that the financing of the FIIT would not be called in question, especially because the Community legal framework then in force being in no way unequivocal as to its being permissible or not did not make it possible to determine whether there existed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the lawfulness of that financial instrument.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 34).


title: Case T-59/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Attenuating circumstances — Passive role — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission
   (Case T-59/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Attenuating circumstances - Passive role - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2012/C 6/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Low & Bonar plc (Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom) and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV (Zele, Belgium) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, lawyer, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Gray, Barrister)

      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 annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(l) 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) at EUR 9.18 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               The European Commission, Low & Bonar plc and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case C-347/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13(2)(f) — Legislation of a Member State providing for social security contributions to be levied on occupational disease benefits payable to persons who do not reside in that State and are no longer subject to its social security scheme)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 200/9
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 May 2001
                            of 3 May 2001
                                                                            in Case C-347/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-306/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                      ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Secretary of State for                  (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Social security
                         the Environment (1)                                — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13(2)(f) —
                                                                            Legislation of a Member State providing for social security
                                                                            contributions to be levied on occupational disease benefits
(Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products —                         payable to persons who do not reside in that State and are
Authorisation for placing on the market — Assessment of                              no longer subject to its social security scheme)
   an application for authorisation — Transitional period)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/16)
                           (2001/C 200/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-306/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                    in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-                  In Case C-347/98: Commission of the European Communities
isional Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the             (Agents: D. Gouloussis and P. Hillenkamp) v Kingdom of
proceedings pending before that court between The Queen                     Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by E. Gillet and G. Vander-
and Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Secretary of               sanden), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsanto plc, intervener:              M.A. Fierstra and I. van der Steen) — application for a
I Pi Ci SpA, Clayton Plant Protection Ltd and British Agrochem-             declaration that, by levying personal contributions of 13,07 %
icals Association Ltd (BAA) — on the interpretation of                      on Belgian occupational disease pensions payable to persons
Articles 8(2) and (3) and 13(6) of Council Directive                        who do not reside in Belgium and are no longer subject to the
91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant                  Belgian social security scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has
protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) —                   failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council
the Court, composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges;                  application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the              self-employed persons and to members of their families
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it                  moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
has ruled:                                                                  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
                                                                            1997 L 28, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                            of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-
Article 8(3) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
                                                                            P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
                                                                            Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
does not apply where, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the directive, an
                                                                            given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it:
application is submitted to a Member State for first authorisation to
place on the market a generic plant protection product containing an
active substance not listed in Annex I to the abovementioned directive,     1.    Dismisses the application;
which is already on the domestic market two years after notification
of that directive, with the consequence that that Member State is not       2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
under an obligation to assess such an application in accordance with              the costs;
the requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f),
of that directive.                                                          3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                  (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.


title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Tania Trigari-Venturin against the Translation Centre for Bodies of the European Union (Case T-98/98)

text:
15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/39
In the applicant's view, the notice of competition breaches        breached its obligations by failing to provide her with the
the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as it excludes          working environment and support necessary in order to
from participation in the selection procedure officials            enable her satisfactorily to complete the tasks assigned to
possessing experience equivalent to that offered by                her.
officials who, at the time of publication of the notice of
competition, were employed in posts similar to the posts           The report prepared in relation to the applicant at the
to be filled.                                                      expiry of her probationary period is vitiated by a manifest
Lastly, the applicant argues that the contested decision is        error of assessment, inasmuch as it concerns duties
vitiated by a complete absence of any relevant statement           completely different from those for which she was
of reasons enabling him to consider whether it was                 recruited.
justified and permitting the Community judicature to
exercise it powers of review.                                      According to the applicant, the defendant has breached
                                                                   the rights of the defence and has committed an abuse of
                                                                   process, since it is only the Centre itself which is
                                                                   competent to adopt a decision dismissing a person and the
                                                                   decision adopted by the Director alone is therefore illegal.
                                                                   Finally, the defendant has not respected the notice periods
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Tania Trigari-                   laid down by the Conditions of Employment of Other
Venturin against the Translation Centre for Bodies of              Servants and by the signed contract of employment
                     the European Union                            binding the parties.
                        (Case T-98/98)
                         (98/C 258/70)                             As regards the compensation claimed, the defendant's
                                                                   conduct has placed the applicant in a position of
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   uncertainty and has caused her to suffer concrete material
An action against the Translation Centre for Bodies of             damage, since she has been deprived of part of the
the European Union was brought before the Court of                 unemployment benefits to which she is entitled.
First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June
1998 by Tania Trigari-Venturin, residing at Sandweiler
(Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                           Removal from the register of Case T-229/95 (1)
Cessange.
                                                                                (98/C 258/71)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Ð annul the decision of the Translation Centre for Bodies
     of the European Union of 9 October 1997 dismissing
     the applicant with effect from 31 October 1997;               By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber (Extended) of the Court of First Instance of the
Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token            European Communities has ordered the removal from the
     sum of one euro by way of compensation for the non-           register of Case T-229/95: Telecom Italia Mobile SpA v
     material damage suffered by her, together with                Commission of the European Communities.
     compensation for the material damage suffered by her
     in the estimated sum of BFR 500 000, subject to               (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.
     increase or decrease during the course of the
     proceedings;
Ð order the defendant to pay default interest on all sums
     due pursuant to the judgment to be given, calculated
     at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date on which
     the social benefits to which the applicant is entitled               Removal from the register of Case T-128/97 (1)
     became due until the date of payment;                                                 (98/C 258/72)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Second
The applicant considers that, by adopting its decision to
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
dismiss her, the defendant infringed Articles 9 and 10 of
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and
                                                                   Case T-128/97: Lars Bösche v European Parliament.
breached the principle that a person's grade should be
consistent with the duties to be performed by that person,
in that it assigned to the applicant tasks of a higher level       (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
than those for which she had been recruited, and failed to
draw up a rider to her contract. The defendant further


title: Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08: Order of the President of the Court of 16 December 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08), Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) (References for a preliminary ruling — Application to participate in the proceedings — Rejection)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 December 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08), Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)
   (Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) (1)

   (References for a preliminary ruling - Application to participate in the proceedings - Rejection)
   2010/C 100/15
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA (C-403/08), Karen Murphy (C-429/08)

      Defendants: QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08), Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division; High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 28, 30, 49 and 81 EC and of Articles 2(a) and (e), 4(a) and 5 of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), of Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), of Article 1(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), and interpretation of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable transmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Grant, for consideration, of exclusive rights in respect of satellite broadcasting of football matches — Marketing, in the United Kingdom, of decoders, lawfully placed on the market in another Member State, making it possible to screen such matches in breach of the exclusive rights granted

      Operative part

               1.

               The applications to participate in the proceedings, submitted respectively by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Setanta Sports Sàrl and The Motion Picture Association, are rejected.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-449/05: Action brought on  22 December 2005  — Dikigorikos Sillogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/42

         Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Dikigorikos Sillogos Ioanninon v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case T-449/05)
   (2006/C 60/82)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Dikigorikos Sillogos Ioanninon (Ioannina Lawyers' Association) (Ioannina, Greece) (represented by: Sotirios Athanasiou)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), as regards Articles 11(c)(i) and (ii), 11(d), 12, 13, 50(3) thereof;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant Lawyers' Association, taking the view that the contested directive concerns it directly and individually as the competent national authority responsible for assessing the professional qualifications of those seeking registration as members, seeks by its action the annulment of certain provisions of that directive. In its opinion, those provisions equate a higher level of professional qualifications with the level directly below and allow a Member State to proceed, by its national provisions, to equate evidence of formal legal qualifications at university level with evidence of formal legal qualifications obtained at a lower educational level and to grant the same professional rights to holders of post-secondary level qualifications as to holders of university qualifications in law, albeit without their satisfying the requirements laid down by the home Member State.
   In support of its application, the applicant maintains that, in issuing the contested directive, the Community institutions went far beyond the limits of their competence and encroached upon the constitutional responsibilities of the Hellenic Republic as regards the organisation and structure of university-level education. In the same context, the applicant also alleges infringement of the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, proximity, cohesion, avoidance of misuse and mutual respect between constitutional and Community authorities. It also alleges infringement of Article 6 EU in so far as it considers that, by the contested directive, the fundamental rights to free education, freedom to choose and exercise a profession and effective use of a recognised educational qualification have been infringed.
   The applicant further relies on infringement of the Community acquis and consequently a conflict between the contested directive and Articles 2 and 3 EU. Lastly it alleges that insufficient and contradictory reasons were given for the contested measure.

      (1)  OJ L 255 of 30.09.2005, p. 22.


title: Case C-20/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January 2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers

text:
C 79/18                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
According to the Commission, it cannot be stated that the                   — should a deduction be allowed by way of general
mere presence of vegetable fats changes the nature of the                       expenses?
product to the extent that the name ‘chocolate’ could create
confusion as to the essential nature of the product itself.
                                                                       (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
The requirement that the name of the product be changed (to                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
its detriment) must be precluded inasmuch as it seriously                  basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).
prejudices recognition of the product as part of a category to
which it rightfully belongs. As such, it is a disproportionate
measure with regard to the objective pursued, namely con-
sumer information.
(1) OJ 1973 L 228, p. 23.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                       Asti — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, by
                                                                       order of 17 December 1999 in the criminal proceedings
                                                                                pending before it against Maurizio Perino
                                                                                (Case C-18/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-                                        (2000/C 79/34)
istratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) by judgment of that court
of 6 January 2000 in the case of Cibo Participations S.A.              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against Directeur Régional des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Ca-               European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Asti
                                 lais                                  (District Court, Asti) of 17 December 1999, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 20 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                           (Case C-16/00)                              in the criminal proceedings pending against Maurizio Perino
                                                                       on the following question:
                           (2000/C 79/33)
                                                                       Does Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (1)
                                                                       permit the storage of waste for submission, not only to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 operations listed in points R1 to R12 of Annex IIB, but also to
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-              another, separate phase of storage, or does the directive require
tratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) (Administrative Court, Lille)           persons storing waste to deliver it solely to a person who
(Fourth Chamber) of 6 January 2000, received at the Court              carries out operations to recover the waste?
Registry on 19 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Cibo Participations S.A. against Directeur Régional des
Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the following questions:               (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                           on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
1. What are the criteria for establishing ‘involvement’? Can it
     be inferred from the provision of paid services, or the
     running of a group of companies by its holding company,
     or de facto management which excludes the independence
     of the subsidiary, or some other factor?
2. Where there is ‘involvement’, does the receipt of dividends         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of
     remain outside the scope of value added tax for any reason        Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January
     other than economic activity, in that such receipts are not       2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading
     the consideration for the supply of goods or services,            as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Minis-
                                                                                ters
     — or, taking account of the fact that fees are incurred in
         connection with the acquisition of shares, the specific                                 (Case C-20/00)
         purpose of which is to enable direct participation in
         economic activity, do dividend receipts fall within the                                 (2000/C 79/35)
         scope of value added tax and, if so, are such receipts
         exempt under Article 13B(1)(d) of the Sixth Council           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         Directive (1) or taxable?                                     European Communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                       Scotland, of 11 January 2000, which was received at the Court
3. If the receipt of dividends remains outside the scope of            Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
     value added tax, what are the implications for deduction:         case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest
                                                                       McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers, on the following
     — does no right remain to deduct tax on fees incurred in          questions:
         connection with the acquisition of shares, on the
         ground that those fees do not relate to a taxable             1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
         transaction, or                                                    93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/19
     of a List II disease on an approved farm or in an approved         Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
     zone, a Member State adopts a domestic measure the                         of the European Communities against Ireland
     application of which results in the destruction and slaugh-
     ter of fish, are the principles of Community law relating to                                (Case C-22/00)
     the protection of fundamental rights in particular the right
     of property, to be interpreted as having placed on a
     Member State the obligation to adopt measures providing                                     (2000/C 79/37)
     for the payment of compensation
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by
     (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale          by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
         of those fish by that owner?                                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,              Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
     court to determine whether the measures that are adopted           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
     the right of property, which the Court ensures and which           — declare that, in failing to adopt all the measures to
     derive in particular from the European Convention on                    fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
     Human Rights?                                                           Directive 87/217/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to comply with
                                                                             Directive 87/217/EEC;
3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
     differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
                                                                        — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
     concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
     fault?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing mini-
    mum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases,    Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
    OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.                                        a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                        on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                        laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
                                                                        1988 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                        ary to fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
                                                                        the directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Massa, by order of 8 October 1999 in
the action pending before that court between Hamadeh                    (1) Council Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction
                Adnan and Società Fiat Sava SpA                             of environmental pollution by asbestos (OJ L 85 of 28.3.1987, p.
                                                                            40).
                           (Case C-21/00)
                           (2000/C 79/36)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice del
Pace di Massa (Office of the Justice of the Peace, Massa) of
8 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 24 January            Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
before it between Hamadeh Adnan and Fiat Sava SpA
                                                                                (Case C-33/00)
On the question of the validity and effect within Italian
territory of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April (1) in view                                  (2000/C 79/38)
of the Italian State’s failure to implement the directive in good
time or by 9 March 1995 when a deed of guarantee was
concluded by the defendant in the present action.                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
(1) Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993 L 95,      Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,
    p. 29.                                                              acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.


title: Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-254/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          IEN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 357/31
By the decision of 9 July 1997 which is now being                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
challenged, the Commission refused the application made
by the applicant on 16 December 1996 .
                                                                       By the contested decision, the application made by the
                                                                       applicant for the award of additional licences to import
The applicant relies on a number of incidents (colapse of              bananas within the framework of the customs quota,
businesses, criminal activities) with South American                   pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 ('),
contractual partners or potential contractual partners                 was granted only in part.
which, it contends, amount to force majeure and justify
the adoption of arrangements to cater for a case of
hardship, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of              In 1991 , the applicant had concluded a long-term contract
Justice (2). Furthermore, the applicant had concluded a                with an Ecuadorian undertaking. That contract contains a
preliminary contract in November 1991 with a South                     guarantee by the applicant as regards the difference with
American undertaking. At that time it was not to be                    the official producer prices in Ecuador and an obligation
envisaged that the external trade rules of the Community               on it to pay to its contractual partner compensation of up
system for bananas would consist of quota rules with                   to US $ 1 million, if it terminates the contract before the
favourable tariffs . The applicant should not under any                agreed date on grounds other than those provided for in
circumstances have had to anticipate a flagrant                        the contract. A restriction on imports was not agreed as a
infringement of the GATT, as was established by the                    ground for termination since, at that time, the parties to
GATT Panel in January 1994. It could have expected that                the agreement still did not have any idea of the structure
it would not be impeded when it marketed in the                        of an EC market organization for bananas. In particular,
Community through quotas the quantities contracted for                 the applicant should have been able to assume that a
with its contractual partner.                                          future EC market organization for bananas would comply
                                                                       with the GATT and, at any rate, that the quantities
                                                                       contracted for would be allowed to be marketed in the
(') OJ L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
(2 ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und      Community unhindered by quotas.
     Ernährung [ 1996] ECR 1-6065 .
                                                                       The applicant contends that its inability to import the
                                                                       bananas into the Community because it does not have an
                                                                       import licence amounts to a circumstance which satisfies
                                                                       all the preconditions for the adoption of arrangements to
                                                                       cater for a case of hardship.
Action brought on 16 September 1997 by Anton Diirbeck
        GmbH against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               The applicant challenged, in addition to the part of the
                          ( Case T-252/97)
                                                                       decision refusing the grant of the licences, the provision
                                                                       under which the licences granted on grounds of hardship
                            ( 97/C 357/59 )                            are not to be taken into account in calculating its
                                                                       reference quantities for future years. The contested
                 (Language of the case: German)                        decision adopted by the Commission not only infringes
                                                                       Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 as interpreted by the
                                                                       Court of Justice in its case-law ( 2 ) but also constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European                       misuse of powers.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 September
                                                                       (') OJ L 47, 25 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .
 1997 by Anton Diirbeck GmbH, Frankfurt am Main,                        ( 2 ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                        Ernährung [ 1996] ECR 1-6065 .
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Marc Baden, 24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty                  Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Fruchthandels
      and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission             gesellschaft mbH Chemnitz against the Commission of the
      of 10 July 1997 on the adoption of transitional                                         European Communities
      measures in favour of A. Diirbeck under the common
                                                                                (Case T-254/97)
      organization of the market in bananas in so far as,
      pursuant to Article 1 ( 6 ) of the decision, the licences                                    ( 97/C 357/60 )
      granted on grounds of hardship are not to be taken
      into account in calculating the applicant's reference
      quantities for future years and, under Article 2, the                              (Language of the case: German)
      further applications made by the applicant on
      24 December 1996 were rejected,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 11 . 97
1997 by Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz,                        — the direction by the Treuhandanstalt to suspend
Chemnitz, represented by Jiirgen Mielke and Thorsten W.                      banana ripening in April 1993 amounts to an
Albrecht, Rechtsanwalte, Hamburg, with an address for                        'exceptional circumstance'.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Entringer,
34A Rue Philippe II.                                                    (') OJL 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
                                                                            Ernährung [ 1996 \ ECR 1-6065 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 9 July 1997
    ( Ref.: VI/6251/97/DE ), pursuant to the first paragraph
    of Article 174 of the Treaty,
                                                                       Action brought on 17 September 1997 by Georges Keiser
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                          against Commission of the European Communities
    pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure .
                                                                                ( Case T-255/97)
                                                                                97/C 357/61 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced'in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the
application made by the applicant pursuant to Article 30
of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 (') for the grant of                   An action against the Commission of the European
additional licences for the import of bananas under the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
rules on tariff quotas . The applicant, founded on 1 January           Instance of the European Communities on 17 September
1994, is the legal successor of a DDR state-owned                       1997 by Georges Keiser, residing in Asselscheuer
enterprise which had existed since 1953 and had an                      ( Luxembourg), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels
annual banana-ripening capacity of up to 14 500 tonnes .                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
In April 1993 , the banana ripening ceased on the direction            applicant's residence, 44 Rue de Grunewald .
of the Treuhandanstalt. Because of the structural problems
in the new Bundeslander, it was not possible for the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant to complete the necessary modernization process
before the adoption of the ' market organization in
bananas'. Even if it had managed to do that in time, it                — annul the decision of 4 June 1997, notified to the
would, on the basis of the reference years to be taken into                  applicant on 16 June 1997, rejecting his complaint
account under Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/                 concerning the decision of 20 December 1996 refusing
93 , have been allocated an unusually low quota .                            his request for reinstatement in his usual duties in the
Furthermore, it had relied, first, on its banana quota being                 Security Office, Luxembourg,
calculated, because of the special situation in the new
Bundeslander, by reference to the capacity of its                      ■— order the defendant to pay the costs of the
predecessor and, secondly, on the years 1993 to 1995 ,                       proceedings.
when capacity was exceedingly poor, not being used as
reference years for the grant of import licences.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In its action, the applicant puts forward the following                The applicant, who is attached to the Security Office in
pleas :                                                                Luxembourg, states, first, that he gave evidence at a
                                                                       hearing on 3 December 1991 in the course of
— the Commission misused its powers in that it failed to               investigations concerning irregularities which had occurred
    recognize that the preconditions for cases of hardship             in the management of the Security Office in Luxembourg
    developed by the Court of Justice in a case with the               and at that hearing revealed details of various improper
    same facts ( 2 ) were satisfied,                                   practices which he had witnessed. Shortly before that
                                                                       hearing, the applicant had participated in tests for a
— the Commission infringed the principle of equal                      general competition. Following that competition,
    treatment under Community law, because, while it                   disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. He
    was not possible for the applicant to achieve                      was accused of dishonesty during the tests. Following the
    significant turnover in the reference years, it is                 disciplinary proceedings, the applicant received a
    nevertheless being treated, in the same way as all other           reprimand on 11 January 1995 . He had, however, been
                                                                       informed that his services would be made available to the
    Western European undertakings in the fruit trade,
                                                                       Publications Office from 31 July 1992 .
— the applicant's property rights are being interfered
    with and it is being prevented from exercising its right           The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
                                                                       of his claims :
    to practice a trade freely, since, as a trader offering a
    full selection of fruit, it is highly dependent on banana
    ripening, and, without the grant of additional licences,           — infringement of Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 1 ) of the Staff
    the basis for its existence is at risk,                                  Regulations and of the published Commission decision


title: Case C-275/13: Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Elcogás SA v Administración del Estado, Iberdrola SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Concept of State intervention or through State resources — Companies which own electricity generating plants — Extraordinary financing)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/10

      Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Elcogás SA v Administración del Estado, Iberdrola SA
      (Case C-275/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Concept of State intervention or through State resources - Companies which own electricity generating plants - Extraordinary financing)
      (2015/C 016/13)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Elcogás SA

         Defendant: Administracion del Estado, Iberdrola SA

         Operative part of the order

      Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the sums allocated to a private undertaking producing electricity which are financed by all end users of electricity in the national territory and which are distributed to undertakings in the electricity sector by a public body in accordance with predetermined legal criteria constitute aid granted by a Member State or through State resources.

         (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.