title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 July 1995 in Case C-156/93: European Parliament v. Commission of the European Communities (Legislation on organic production of agricultural products - Respective powers of the Council and the Commission - Prerogatives of the Parliament)

text:
No C 268/2            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Ricardo Gosalbo Bono and Pieter Van Nuffel ) —                          2 , orders the European Parliament to pay the costs. The
application for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   Council shall bear its own costs.
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                     (') OJ No C 159 , 11 . 6 . 1993 .
President, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:
1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 , orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                                               of 13 July 1995
                                                                        in Case C-341/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
3 , orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic and               the Vestre Landsret ( Denmark )): Danvaern Production A/S
      the Commission to bear their own costs .                                   and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co ( 1 )
                                                                        (Brussels Convention — Specialjurisdiction — Article 6 (3)
                                                                                — Counterclaim — Set-off)
(•) OJ No C 260 , 9 . 10 . 1992 .
                                                                                95/C 268/04
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                        of 13 July 1995
in Case C-156/93 : European Parliament v. Commission of
                 the European Communities (')                           In Case C-341 /93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
 (Legislation on organicproduction ofagriculturalproducts               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
 — Respectivepowers ofthe Council and the Commission —                  of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
                Prerogatives of the Parliament)                         and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                          ( 95/C 268/03 )                               Matters by the Vestre Landsret ( Denmark ) for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                        Danvaern Production A/S and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck
                (Language of the case: English)                         GmbH & Co — on the interpretation of Articles 6(3 ) and
                                                                        22 of the said Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
                                                                        L 304, p . 36 ), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
 In Case C-156/93 : European Parliament ( agent: Jorge                   1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland
 Campinos ) v. Commission of the European Communities                    and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
 ( agents: Christiaan Timmermans, David Gilmour and José                Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and — as amended — p . 77 ) and
 Luis Iglesias Buhigues) supported by Council of the                    the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
 European Union ( agents: Jean-Claude Piris and Michael                  Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388 , p . 1 and — as amended —
 Bishop ) — application for the annulment of Commission                  OJ No C 97, p . 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 207/93 of 29 January 1993 defining                Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, C.
 the content of Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91                Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
 on organic production of agricultural products and                      Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
 indications referring thereto on agricultural products and              Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L.
 foodstuffs and laying down detailed rules for implementing              Sevón, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
 the provisions of Article 5 ( 4 ) thereto ( OJ No L 25 , p. 5 ) or,     Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it
 in the alternative, the annulment of the contested parts                rules :
 thereof — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)
 and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N.            Article 6 (3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
 Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G.                  Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and
 Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,                Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of
 Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                    9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
 it :
                                                                         and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of25 October
                                                                          1 982 on the Accession ofthe Hellenic Republic, applies only
  1,   dismisses the action :                                            to claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement ofa


title: Case C-280/12 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/10

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council
   (Case C-280/12 P)
   2012/C 235/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10;

               —

               Give a final ruling on the dispute and dismiss the actions brought by Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian against the measures of the Council at issue;

               —

               Order Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in connection with the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council submits that the judgment of the General Court in the abovementioned cases is marred by errors of law and that that judgment should therefore be set aside by the Court.
   The Council maintains that the General Court erred in law in holding that it had to adduce evidence to substantiate its statement of the reasons for the imposition of restrictive measures against the company Fulmen, namely that that company was involved in the installation of electrical equipment on the Qom/Fordoo (Iran) nuclear site.
   In that regard, the Council submits, first, that the General Court erred in law in holding that it had to require the Member State which proposed designating Fulmen to present evidence and information although that evidence comes from confidential sources. Secondly, the Council submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that that Court could take account of confidential evidence which is not communicated to the lawyers of the parties concerned, although Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not provide for that possibility.


title: Case T-76/13: Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon/OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/30

         Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon/OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO)
   (Case T-76/13)
   2013/C 108/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staccata Srl (Como, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision issued on 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5) on the grounds that articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have indeed been fulfilled;

               —

               Order the OHIM and STACCATA S.r.l. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing a device of extended wings and the word element ‘QUARTODIMIGLIO’ for goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 260 597

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of extended wings and some of them the word element ‘LONGINES’ — Community trade mark registration No 225 714, International registrations No 401 319, No 529 334, No 610 902 and No 298 063 for goods in classes 9 and 14

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-128/99: Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Signal Communications Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
7.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/41
Action brought on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio                             Article 87 EC (ex Article 92). The tax authorities do not
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                    possess the alleged discretion attributed to them by the
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                       Commission, and the requirements laid down in the
                         Communities                                        Norma Foral may be fulfilled by any economic operator,
                                                                            irrespective of the sector in which it carries on its activities:
                        (Case T-127/99)                                 — erroneous application of the exception based on the nature
                                                                            and scheme of the system, which may justify a finding of
                        (1999/C 226/72)                                     selectivity in the event that such a finding is made. The
                                                                            applicant maintains in that regard that the criteria for
                                                                            application of Normas Forales 22/1994 and 24/1996 are
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                           objective and transparent, and moreover, that they are
                                                                            necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by
                                                                            them.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio                   comply with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                for the acts adopted by it.
Foral de Alava, established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente lawyers,
with an address for service c/o Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78
Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Signal Communi-
                                                                        cations Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the
— annul the Commission Decision of 24 February 1999                                              Internal Market
    concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-
    tronics Manufacturing España (DEMESA), in particular
    Articles 1(d) and (e) and 2(1)(b) thereof and, in so far as it                               (Case T-128/99)
    may be concerned Article 2(2) thereof;
                                                                                (1999/C 226/73)
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of           European Communities on 25 May 1999 b Signal Communi-
the Commission by which it found that the following financial           cations Ltd., represented by John Grayston and André Bywater,
measures adopted in relation to Daewoo Electronics Manufac-             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
turing España S.A. (DEMESA) constitute State aid incompatible          Duro & Lang, 3 rue de la Chappelle.
with the common market:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
— free occupation of land on the Júndiz industrial estate for
    a term of nine months pending payment of the price                  — declare the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the
    thereof;                                                                Internal Market First Board of Appeal of 24 March 1999,
                                                                            dismissing the appeal by the applicant, is void:
— the investment subsidy granted by the Basque authorities              — order that Community Trade Mark Application
    in the context of the EKIMEN programme, 5 % of which                    No 837096 be amended from TELEYE to TELEEYE; and
    was not covered by that scheme;
                                                                        — order the costs of proceedings to be borne by the
— the benefit of the measures provided for in Normas                        defendant.
    Forales (regional regulations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 of the
    Territorio Histórico de Alava, consisting of a tax credit of
    45 % of the cost of the investment and a reduction of the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    basis of assessment granted to newly created undertakings.
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:             ‘TELEYE’ - Application No
                                                                                837096
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                        Product or service:               alarm and surveillance systems
— misinterpretation by the Commission of the concept of                                                   (Class 9)
    State aid, as regards the Commission’s view that the tax
    credit and the reduction of the basis of assessment                 Decision contested before         decision of the examiner not
    constitute measures of a selective nature and, consequently,        the Board of Appeal:              allowing an amendment of the
    that they amount to State aid. The applicant maintains in                                             application for the trace mark
    that regard that the measures in issue are of a general                                               ‘TELEYE’ to ‘TETEEYE’
    nature and that, as such, they fall outside the scope of
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/42              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
Pleas in law relied on:           infringement of Article 44 of             Article 10(1) of the Decree, 5 % as a strategic project
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  amount and 5 % as an amount in respect of an investment
                                                                            project creating significant employment, in accordance
                                  infringement of Article 63(2)             with Article 10(2) of the Decree and, finally, 5 % in
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               accordance with Article 10(4) of the Decree;
                                  infringement of Articles 74(1)
                                  and 76(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)       — violation of the right of the Comunidad Autónoma del
                                  No 40/94.                                 Paı́s Vasco to a fair hearing, inasmuch as the Comunidad
                                                                            had no knowledge, prior to the communication of the
                                                                            contested decision, of the infringement attributed to it by
                                                                            the Commission with regard to Article 7(d) of the Decree;
                                                                        — erroneous interpretation of Article 87(3)(c) EC (ex Article
                                                                            92(3)(c)). In advancing that plea, on which they rely in the
                                                                            alternative in the event that the Court declares the existence
                                                                            of State aid, the applicants maintain that the Commission
Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Comunidad                              should in any event have characterised that aid as regional
Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizko Industria Lurra                     aid withir the meaning of the abovementioned provisions.
S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                        (Case T-129/99)
                        (1999/C 226/74)
                                                                        Action brought on 27 May 1999 by David Crabbe against
                                                                        European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             Training (CEDEFOP)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        (Case T-130/99)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Comunidad
Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizko Industria Lurra S.A.,                                   (1999/C 226/75)
both established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by Fernando
Pombo Garcı́a, Emiliano Garayar Gutiérrez and Juan Alonso
Berberena, lawyers, with an address for service c/o Gómez-                                (Language of the case: French)
Acebo & Pombo 99/101 Rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels.
                                                                        An action against European Centre for the Development of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Vocational Training was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1999 by
— annul the Commission’s decision of 24 February 1999                   David Crabbe, residing at Thessaloniki (Greece), represented
    concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-               by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for
    tronics Manufacturing España (DEMESA);                             service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.à r.l., 30 Rue de
                                                                        Cessange.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the defendant’s decision to reject his administrative
                                                                            complaint of 27 October 1998;
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-127/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava,               — annul the defendant’s decision to reject his request of
Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava v                        26 June 1998;
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicants plead, in particular:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— alleged contravention of the principles of legal certainty
    and of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch
    as DEMESA, correctly interpreting the criteria laid down in         Until 1 September 1997, the applicant was an official in Grade
    Article 10 of the Decree governing the EKINEM pro-                  LA 6 of the European Parliament working as a translator as
    gramme, as notified to the Commission, was entitled, in             part of the Language Service provided for in Article 5(2) of the
    the applicants’ view, to receive a 25 % non-repayable               Staff Regulations. He applied for the post of English-language
    subsidy, comprising a 10 % tranche in accordance with               translator advertised by CEDEFOP.


title: Case C-89/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 17 February 2010 — Q-Beef NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 17 February 2010 — Q-Beef NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-89/10)
   2010/C 113/39
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Q-Beef NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law preclude national courts from applying the limitation period of five years, which is laid down in the internal legal system in respect of debts owed by the State, to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid to a Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, and which were paid before the entry into force of a new system of aid and compulsory contributions which replaces the first system, and which, by a final decision of the Commission, was declared compatible with Community law, but not in so far as those charges were imposed retroactively in respect of a period prior to the date of that decision?

               2.

               Does Community law preclude a Member State from successfully invoking national limitation periods which, in comparison with those applicable under ordinary national law, are particularly favourable to that Member State, as a defence against proceedings instituted against it by a private individual with a view to vindicating that private individual’s rights under the EC Treaty, in a case such as that before the national court, in which the effect of those particularly favourable national limitation periods is to render impossible the recovery of charges which were paid to the Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, where the conflict with Community law was established by the then Court of Justice of the European Communities only after the particularly favourable national limitation periods had expired, even if the illegality had existed earlier?


title: Case C-513/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by ‘Agrodetalė’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market — EC type-approval — Directive 2003/37/EC — Scope — Agricultural or forestry tractors — Placement on the market and registration in the European Union of used or second-hand vehicles imported from a third country — Concepts of ‘new vehicle’ and ‘entry into service’)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by ‘Agrodetalė’ UAB
   (Case C-513/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market - EC type-approval - Directive 2003/37/EC - Scope - Agricultural or forestry tractors - Placement on the market and registration in the European Union of used or second-hand vehicles imported from a third country - Concepts of ‘new vehicle’ and ‘entry into service’))
   (2017/C 277/05)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Party to the main proceedings

   ‘Agrodetalė’ UAB

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors, their trailers and interchangeable towed machinery, together with their systems, components and separate technical units and repealing Directive 74/150/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/44/EU of 18 March 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that the first placing on the market and the registration in a Member State of used or second-hand tractors imported from a third country are subject to compliance with the technical requirements laid down by that directive.

               2.

               Article 23(1)(b) of Directive 2003/37, as amended by Directive 2014/44, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that directive apply to second-hand vehicles coming under categories T1, T2 and T3 and imported into the European Union from a third country, where they are entered into service in the European Union for the first time on or after 1 July 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 September 1999 in Case C-378/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam): criminal proceedings against Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek (Freedom of movement for persons - Right of citizens of the European Union to move and reside freely - Border controls - National legislation requiring persons coming from another Member State to present a passport)

text:
C 366/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 21 September 1999                                                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 September 1999
in Case C-378/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam): criminal
       proceedings against Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek (1)                      in Case C-362/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons — Right of citizens of
the European Union to move and reside freely — Border                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
controls — National legislation requiring persons coming                                   to transpose Directive 93/103/EC)
      from another Member State to present a passport)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/16)
                          (1999/C 366/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-362/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: Pieter Jan Kuijper and Antonio Aresu) v Italian
In Case C-378/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                Gaizo) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
rechtbank te Rotterdam, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling               and/or by not communicating to the Commission the laws,
in the criminal proceedings before that court against Florus                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
Ariël Wijsenbeek — on the interpretation of Articles 7a and                 with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993
8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 14 EC                   concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
and 18 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                        work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann,          within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
Presidents of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-                (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
mann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                   its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (First
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate                   Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for                  the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 1999, in                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
which it has ruled:                                                         on 21 September 1999, in which it:
                                                                            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
As Community law stood at the time of the events in question in the             laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
main proceedings, neither Article 7a nor Article 8a of the EC Treaty            comply with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November
(now, after amendment, Articles 14 EC and 18 EC) precluded a                    1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
Member State from requiring a person, whether or not a citizen of               for work on board fishing vessels (thirteenth individual Directive
the European Union, under threat of criminal penalties, to establish            within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
his nationality upon his entry into the territory of that Member State          the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
by an internal frontier of the Community, provided that the penalties           Article 13(1) thereof;
applicable are comparable to those which apply to similar national
infringements and are not disproportionate, thus creating an obstacle
to the free movement of persons.                                            2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 387 of 20.12.1997.                                              (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.1998.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/46

         Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Roderich Weißenfels against European Parliament
   (Case T-33/04)
   (2004/C 94/129)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 2004 by Roderich Weißenfels, residing in Bereldingen (Luxembourg), represented by H. Arend, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 26 June 2003 deducting payments made for the benefit of his son from other sources from the double child allowance payable to the applicant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, together with the defendant's decision of 10 November 2003 on the complaint in the same matter;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant all amounts improperly withheld from his remuneration together with interest at the rate prescribed by law;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs and all the essential expenses incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   For some years, the applicant has received a double child allowance under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations. Since December 1998, the applicant's severely disabled son has been receiving monthly disability assistance payments from a Luxembourg fund. In 1999, the applicant notified these payments as a precaution. As a result, the amount of the payments from the fund, which regularly exceeded the double child allowance, was deducted from these family allowances, repayment was demanded of past sums paid since the award of the special assistance by the Luxembourg fund, and family allowances which would otherwise have been due thereafter were subsequently not paid.
   The applicant claims that the conditions under which a deduction may be made under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations have not been met. According to the definition in Article 67(3), the double child allowance is to be paid in order to relieve the financial burden on an official who, because his child is severely handicapped, is involved in ‘heavy expenditure’. By contrast, the fund defines payments made by it as ‘special assistance for severely disabled persons’. They are separate payments, which are awarded to the handicapped child itself, rather than to the applicant, even though the money is paid to the child's legal representative because the person entitled to it is a minor. The payments are thus neither ‘allowances’, nor are they ‘of like nature’. Their deduction under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations is therefore unlawful. Furthermore, the deductions were, from the start, made contrary to the better legal view.


title: Case C-205/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   (Case C-205/12)
   2012/C 227/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Essent Belgium NV
   Defendant: Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   Other Party: Vlaamse Gewest

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where

                           —

                           an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           it is expressly provided that guarantees of origin from other countries may be submitted under certain conditions in order to fulfil the quota obligation (Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as applicable in this case);

                           —

                           the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and Denmark, and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms;

                           —

                           in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin from other Member States of the European Union met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates,

                     compatible with Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and/or Article 36 of that Treaty and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?

               2.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with Article 5 of the then Directive 2001/77/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market?

               3.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination as embodied inter alia in Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 3 of the then Directive 2003/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2005 in Case C-358/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza in Caseificio Valdagnese Srl v Regione Veneto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 14 June 2005
   in Case C-358/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza in Caseificio Valdagnese Srl v Regione Veneto (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 217/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-358/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy), made by decision of 2 August 2004, received at the Court on 17 August 2004, in the proceedings between Caseificio Valdagnese Srl and Regione Veneto — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunale di Vicenza by decision of 2 August 2004 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.


title: Case C-130/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited (Preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption — Article 13B(d)(3) — Transactions in respect of payments and transfers — Concept — Purchase of tickets for shows or other events — Payment by debit or credit card — ‘Card processing’ services’)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited

   (Case C-130/15) (1)

   ((Preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions in respect of payments and transfers - Concept - Purchase of tickets for shows or other events - Payment by debit or credit card - ‘Card processing’ services’))
   (2016/C 260/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: National Exhibition Centre Limited

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for in that article in respect of transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a service described as ‘processing of payment by debit or credit card’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual buys, via that provider, a ticket for a show or other event which the provider sells in the name and on behalf of another entity, which that individual pays for by debit or credit card.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case C-515/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Public access to environmental information — Directive 2003/4/EC — Power of the Member States to exclude bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of ‘public authority’ under that directive — Limits)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-515/11) (1)

   (Public access to environmental information - Directive 2003/4/EC - Power of the Member States to exclude bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of ‘public authority’ under that directive - Limits)
   2013/C 260/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Obligation of public authorities to make available environmental information held by them to any applicant — National legislation exempting the supreme federal authorities from the obligation to provide information where they act in the context of the legislative process — Limits of the power of the Member States to exclude bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of ‘public authority’ under Directive 2003/4/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the option given to Member States by that provision of not regarding ‘bodies or institutions acting in a … legislative capacity’ as public authorities, required to allow access to the environmental information which they hold, may not be applied to ministries when they prepare and adopt normative regulations which are of a lower rank than a law.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-184/02: Action brought on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 169/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
by judgment of that Court of 25 January 2002 in the case
of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association
pour la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement
des opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations                 —     annul Directive 2002/15/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
départementales de chasseurs and Association nationale                           ment and of the Council on the organisation of the
des chasseurs de gibier d’eau against République française                       working time of persons performing mobile road trans-
                                                                                port activities; and
                           (Case C-182/02)
                                                                           —     order the Council to pay the costs.
                           (2002/C 169/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
(Council of State) of 25 January 2002, received at the Court               Pleas in law and main arguments
Registry on 15 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association pour
la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement des
opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations départe-
mentales de chasseurs and Association nationale des chasseurs
de gibier d’eau against République française on the following              Breach of the right to professional and commercial freedom:
questions:
—      Does Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409 of
       2 April 1979 (1) permit a Member State to derogate from             —     Bringing self-employed carriers within the scope of the
       the opening and closing dates for hunting set in the light                directive at issue infringes the fundamental right to
       of the objectives specified in Article 7(4) thereof?                      exercise freely a professional or commercial occupation,
                                                                                one of the general principles of law respect for which is
                                                                                safeguarded by the Court of Justice.
—      If so, what are the criteria which make it possible to
       establish the limits of that derogation?
                                                                           —     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: bringing
( 1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 self-employed carriers within the scope of the directive
     vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1).                         amounts to unjustified discrimination against those car-
                                                                                riers as compared with carriers who are employed by
                                                                                other persons, since situations which are quite different
                                                                                are being treated in the same way without there being
                                                                                any objective justification for doing so; in addition, it
                                                                                involves a failure to observe the terms of reference of
                                                                                Article 74 EC, which requires the Council, when it takes
                                                                                measures in respect of transport rates and conditions, to
                                                                                take account of the economic circumstances of carriers.
Action brought on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
          against the Council of the European Union                              Furthermore, bringing self-employed drivers within the
                                                                                scope of the directive operates as a disincentive to
                                                                                the creation of transport undertakings and limits their
                           (Case C-184/02)                                       capacity to expand by making the legal framework
                                                                                unclear. Small operators will not know whether their
                           (2002/C 169/43)                                       actions are within the ambit of the law relating to self-
                                                                                employed persons or are within a labour relationship like
                                                                                that of any employee, or, perhaps worse, will not know
                                                                                whether they are subject to the limitations but not the
                                                                                rights imposed or granted to the latter. In short, bringing
An action against the Council of the European Union was                          self-employed carriers within the scope of the directive
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     discriminates against them as compared with carriers
ties on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain represented by                       who operate through persons working for others, making
Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogada del Estado, with an address                   it impossible for them to carry on business in a normal
for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy,                                way, reducing their competitiveness and leading to their
4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                                                  gradual exclusion from the market.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/25
—     The object of Directive 2002/15/EC is not road safety                     within the areas of which those economic activities are
      because it is regulates working time rather than driving                  carried on, and by restricting exclusively to municipalities
      time. In contrast, Regulation No 3820/85 (2), which                       the conduct of the activity of posting advertisements,
      applies to all types of carriers, self-employed and                       results in giving surreptitious finance to the municipal
      employed, regulates driving time and breaks and rest                      advertising undertaking?
      periods.
—     Failure to state reasons: there is a failure to state the           3)    May Article 2 (ex Article 2), Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) (ex
      reasons for bringing self-employed operators within the                   Article 3), (as amended by Article 2(3) and Article 61(1)
      scope of the directive at issue. Recital 8 in the preamble                of the Treaty of Amsterdam), of Article 23 (ex Article 9),
      to the directive lacks precision.                                         of Article 27 (ex Article 29) (a) (b) and (d), and of
                                                                                Article 31 (ex Article 37) (1) and (3) of the EC Treaty be
                                                                                construed as meaning that they preclude a law of a
                                                                                Member State — in this instance, Italy — which provides
(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.                                                for a tax on advertising and imposes payment of charges
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                                for public bill-posting, including that tax, payable to
    the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
    transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1).                                   municipalities which engage in the posting of bills on an
                                                                                exclusive basis?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 9 April 2002 in
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
                        Immobilier S.a.r.l.                               Action brought on 23 May 2002 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                         (Case C-190/02)
                                                                                (Case C-192/02)
                         (2002/C 169/44)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/45)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 9 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 22 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 May
Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:                           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
1)    whether it is contrary to the proper interpretation of              Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
      Articles 49 (ex Article 59) and 50 (ex Article 60) for the          Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      law of the Italian State to introduce, govern and make
      regulations for advertising tax and bill-posting charges,
      restricting the management of these exclusively to Italian
      municipalities, and whether the concept of the provision            In its application, as amended by the corrigendum lodged on
      of services, as provided in Article 50 (ex Article 60) of           28 May 2002, the applicant claims that the Court should:
      the EC Treaty, can include the activity pursued by the
      agencies of the municipal authorities or by entities
      entrusted with the operation of this field of economic              1.    declare that by:
      activity.
2)    Must Articles 81 (ex Article 85), 82 (ex Article 86),                     (a)   incorrectly transposing into Austrian law the defi-
      86 (ex Article 90) and 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty                      nitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in
      be construed as meaning that they preclude legislation                          Article 1(e) and (f) of Council Directive 75/442/
      which, by providing for a tax on outdoor advertising or a                       EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended, in
      charge for bill-posting payable to the municipalities                           conjunction with Annexes II A and II B thereto, and


title: Case C-413/00: Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 28/16                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.1.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 10 November 2000 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                            guese Republic
relied on in Case C-407/00 (4); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 13 February 1999, 31 March 1999 and 30 April                                             (Case C-414/00)
1999 respectively.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/29)
( 1) OJ 1998 L 208, p. 49.                                               An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
( 2) OJ 1998 L 261, p. 32.                                               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
( 3) OJ 1998 L 290, p. 25.                                               10 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
( 4) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                                 Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission                            prescribed period all the provisions necessary to comply
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                         with Council Directive 97/78/EC (1) of 18 December
                               Netherlands                                     1997 laying down the principles governing the organis-
                                                                               ation of veterinary checks on products entering the
                            (Case C-413/00)                                    Community from third countries, the Portuguese Repub-
                                                                               lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10
                                                                               and 249 of the EC Treaty; and
                             (2001/C 28/28)
                                                                         —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               Pleas in law and main arguments
9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Mongin and H. M. H. Speyart,              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for              relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition
service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of          of the directive expired on 1 June 1999.
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1998 L 24, p. 9.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              (2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
1.     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 98/41/EC (1) of 18 June 1998 on the
       registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships
       operating to or from ports of the Member States of the
       Community, or in any event by not informing the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
       Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of the                   Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
       Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that       9 November 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert
       directive.                                                        Pflanzl, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,
                                                                         (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and
2.     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.            (4) Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg
                                                                                (Case C-415/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 28/30)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-407/00 (2); the period for transposition expired on               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1 January 1999.                                                          European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                                                                         tungssenat Salzburg of 9 November 2000, received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary
(1) OJ 1998 L 188, p. 35.                                                ruling in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Herbert Pflanzl, (2)
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                                  Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, (3) Grundver-
                                                                         kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and (4) Grundver-
                                                                         kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg on the following
                                                                         question:


title: Case T-25/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Haw Par v OHIM — Cosmowell (GelenkGold)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/39

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Haw Par v OHIM — Cosmowell (GelenkGold)
   (Case T-25/16)
   (2016/C 106/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Gehweiler, C. Brockmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘GelenkGold’ — Community trade mark No 9 957 978

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 1907/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs that the applicant incurred before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-477/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM — TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TDK — Earlier Community figurative mark TDK — Earlier national word or figurative marks TDK — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHIM — TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK)
   (Case T-477/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TDK - Earlier Community figurative mark TDK - Earlier national word or figurative marks TDK - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 82/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark) (represented by C. Barret Christiansen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by S. Laitinen and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by A. Norris, Barrister)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2004 (Case R 364/2003-1) concerning opposition proceedings between TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) and Aktieselskabet af 21 november 2001.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant, Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 February 1995 in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
22 . 4. 95            | EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /9
           the period there specified, the applicant should be           — award him compensation of ECU 13 900 for damage
           wound-up by court order without having provided                    sustained .
           that balance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
4.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                         The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission,
t 1 ) OJ No L 243 , 19 . 9 . 1994, p . 1 .                               dated 26 April 1994, by which the Commission rejected his
                                                                         application for a fellowship at the University of London, in
                                                                         the field of research and technological development, on the
                                                                         basis that, having both British and Greek nationality, he
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  would not satisfy the eligibility requirements, according to
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                which the applicant must be :
                       of 24 February 1995                               ( a ) a national of a Community Member State or an
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the                       associated State or a natural person resident in the
                     European Communities                                      Community; and
                             ( 95/C 101 /23
                                                                         ( b ) a national of a country other than that in which the
                  (Language of the case: French)                               laboratory is established and must not have carried out
                                                                               his/her normal activity in that country for more than
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   two years prior to the date of submission of the
           published in the European Court Reports)                            application.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels, an official of the                  The applicant has neither Greek nor British nationality, is a
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                      'British overseas citizen', and as such, belongs to a specific
Arlon, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure                 category of aliens who need both a residence and a work
and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             permit in order to live and work in the United Kingdom.
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 'British overseas citizens' are not treated as European Union
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                      nationals in any Member State .
Communities (Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) — application for
suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 imposing on the applicant                  Consequently, the applicant fulfilled both the nationality
                                                                         and the mobility criteria of eligibility laid down in the
the disciplinary measure of removal from post — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                ' General Conditions Governing Research Training
24 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as                     Fellowships ', since he is a natural person not having the
follows :                                                                nationality of any EC Member State, resident in Greece,
                                                                         seeking to move to the United Kingdom and having never in
 1 , implementation of the decision of the Commission is                 his life carried out a normal activity in the United
      suspended until delivery of the final order in the                 Kingdom.
      proceedings for interim relief;
2 , the costs are reserved.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by 'Atlanta'
                                                                         Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH and
Action brought on 10 January 1995 by Frederick Farrugia                  Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-230/94 )                                                       (Case T-18/95 )
                               95/C 101 /24 )                                                     ( 95/C 101/25
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1995                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 by Frederick Farrugia, represented by L. Sissilianos, of the            Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995
Athens Bar, Kanari 4, Athens, Greece.                                    by 'Atlanta ' Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH of
                                                                         Bremen ( Federal Republic of Germany) and Internationale
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Frachtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co of Hamburg
                                                                          ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Erik A.
— annul the decision of the Commission to reject his                     Undritz and Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwàlte, with an address
      application for a research training fellowship on                  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden,
      eligibility grounds,                                               24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-223/00: Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity of the infringement — Turnover — Concurrent sanctions)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 213/27
(Belgium), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, with an address for            cation for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2001/
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                         418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Communities (agents: H.M.H. Speyart and L. Flynn) — an                      Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000)                   Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ 2001
36 of 31 January 2000 reducing the amount of financial                      L 152, p. 24) or a reduction in the fine imposed on the
assistance initially provided by Decision C (1994) 3059 of                  applicants, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
25 November 1994 approving the grant of assistance through                  composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
the European Social Fund for an operational programme under                 Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
the Community framework of support for the achievement of                   given a judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:
Objective 3 in Belgium (Flemish Community) — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:                    1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Cheil Jedang Corp. at
J. Plingers, Administrator, gave the following judgment on                         EUR 10 080 000;
9 July 2003:
                                                                            2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.     Commission Decision C (2000) 36 of 31 January 2000
       reducing the amount of financial assistance initially provided       3.     Orders Cheil Jedang Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay two
       by Decision C (1994) 3059 of 25 November 1994 approving                     thirds of the Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to
       the grant of assistance through the European Social Fund for                bear one third of its own costs.
       an operational programme under the Community framework of
       support for the achievement of Objective 3 in Belgium
       (Flemish Community) is annulled in so far as it reduces by           (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
       EUR 181 067 the financial assistance under the European
       Social Fund of which the Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale
       Integratie van Personen met een Handicap is the recipient;
2.     The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
                                                                            in Case T-223/00: Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and
                                                                            Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Commission of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     European Communities ( 1)
                            of 9 July 2003
                                                                            (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
                                                                            method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity of the
in Case T-220/00: Cheil Jedang Corp. v Commission of the                          infringement — Turnover — Concurrent sanctions)
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/52)
(Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and
duration of the infringement — Turnover — Mitigating                                             (Language of the case: English)
                            circumstances)
                           (2003/C 213/51)
                                                                            In Case T-223/00, Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd, established in
                                                                            Tokyo (Japan), Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH, established in
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Canenbley, and
                                                                            K. Diedrich, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                            W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for partial annul-
In Case T-220/00, Cheil Jedang Corp., established in London                 ment of Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000
(United Kingdom), represented by A.R.M. Bell, solicitor,                    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
R.P. Gerrits, lawyer, and J. Killick, barrister, with an address for        Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                         36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ 2001 L 152, p. 24) or a
Communities (Agents: W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Appli-                 reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants, the Court of
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras,                   1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Archer Daniels Midland
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen,                       Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd jointly
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on, in                      and severally at EUR 43 875 000;
which it:
                                                                            2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                            3.     Orders Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels
2.     Orders Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe                     Midland Ingredients Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay
       GmbH to bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay             three quarters of the Commission’s costs and orders the
       those incurred by the Commission.                                           Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 316 of 04.11.2000.                                                (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 9 July 2003
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
in Case T-224/00: Archer Daniels Midland Company and
Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                              in Case T-230/00: Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe
                                                                              GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and                       (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
duration of the infringement — Turnover — Aggravating                       method of setting fines — Turnover — Mitigating circum-
circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation                      stances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
during the administrative procedure — Concurrent sanc-
                                 tions)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/54)
                           (2003/C 213/53)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-230/00, Daesang Corp., established in Seoul (South
In Case T-224/00, Archer Daniels Midland Company, estab-                    Korea), Sewon Europe GmbH, established in Eschborn
lished in Decatur, Illinois (United States of America), Archer              (Germany), represented by J.-F. Bellis and S. Reinart, lawyers,
Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd, established in Erith (United               and A. Kmiecik, solicitor, with an address for service in
Kingdom), represented by L. Martin Alegi and E.W. Batchelor,                Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                    (Agents: W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for a
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils,                    reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission
R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for partial annulment of                 Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding
Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating                     pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and                 EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 —                      2001 L 152, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Amino Acids) (OJ 2001 L 152, p. 24) or a reduction in the                   Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
fine imposed on the applicants, and counterclaim by the                     P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Commission for an increase in the amount of that fine, the                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Chris-
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Daesang Corp. and
on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                       Sewon Europe GmbH jointly and severally at EUR 7 128 240;


title: Case T-128/17: Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Torné v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/27

         Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Torné v Commission
   (Case T-128/17)
   (2017/C 129/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabel Torné (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that:

               —

               The decision of 16 April 2016 to reject her application to have her pension accrual rate and her retirement date fixed is annulled;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present action, the applicant contests the decision impliedly rejecting her application for an advance ruling concerning certain fixed and invariable factors in the calculation of her pension rights. She is of the opinion that the implied rejection of her application constitutes a failure to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations and, accordingly, is a measure adversely affecting her for the purpose of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.
   With regard to the factors for calculation of her pension, the applicant also contests the Commission’s practice of taking the view that the transfer of a member of the temporary staff covered by Article 2(f) of the CEOS to another EU agency entails the conclusion of a new contract, separate from the previous contract, which shows a discontinuity in the career of that member of the temporary staff and therefore entails the application of the new rules under the Staff Regulations concerning retirement pensions.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 May 1998 in Case C-22/96: European Parliament, supported by the Commission of the European Communities, v Council of the European Union (Council Decision 95/468/EC - IDA - Telematic networks - Legal basis)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 234/11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 28 May 1998                                                        (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-22/96: European Parliament, supported by the                                       of 28 May 1998
Commission of the European Communities, v Council of                 in    Case    C-213/97: Commission of the European
                    the European Union (1)                                       Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)
(Council Decision 95/468/EC Ð IDA Ð Telematic                        (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                   networks Ð Legal basis)                           Directives 86/280/EEC and 88/347/EEC Ð Failure to
                                                                                transpose within the period prescribed)
                        (98/C 234/20)
                                                                                (98/C 234/21)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-213/97: Commission of the European
In Case C-22/96: European Parliament (Agents: Johann                 Communities (represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v
Schoo and JoseÂ Luis Rufas Quintana), supported by the               Portuguese Republic (Luís Fernandes et JoaÄo Lopes
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Fernandes), application for a declaration, first, that by
Claudia Schmidt and Pieter van Nuffel), v Council of the             failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
European Union (Agents: Antonio Sacchettini and                      administrative provisions necessary fully and properly to
Amadeu Lopes Sabino) Ð application for annulment of                  implement Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986
Council Decision 95/468/EC of 6 November 1995 on a                   on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
Community contribution for telematic interchange of data             certain dangerous substances included in List I of the
between administrations in the Community (IDA) (OJ                   Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (OJ L 181 of 4.7.1986,
L 269 of 11.11.1995, p. 23) Ð the Court, composed of:                p. 16), as amended by Council Directive 88/347/EEC of
G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (President           16 June 1988 (OJ L 158 of 25.6.1988, p. 35) and, in the
of Chamber), G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                   alternative, that by failing immediately to inform the
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón            Commission of those measures, the Portuguese Republic
(Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;               has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May                  paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and under
1998, in which it:                                                   Article 7(1) of Directive 86/280 and the first paragraph of
                                                                     Article 2 of Directive 88/347 respectively, the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of
1. Annuls Council Decision 95/468/EC of 6 November                   Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray
     1995 on a Community contribution for telematic                  and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     interchange of data between administrations in the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     Community (IDA);                                                judgment on 28 May 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
2. Maintains the effects of the implementing measures                     regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     already taken by the Commission of the European                      fully and properly to implement Council Directive 86/
     Communities on the basis of that decision;                           280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality
                                                                          objectives for discharges of certain dangerous
                                                                          substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive
                                                                          76/464/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 88/
3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the                    347/EEC of 16 June 1988, the Portuguese Republic
     costs;                                                               has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of
                                                                          Directive 86/280 and the first paragraph of Article 2
                                                                          of Directive 88/347 respectively;
4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     to bear its own costs.
                                                                     2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.