title: Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-164/97 between S. Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Case C-434/98 P)

text:
C 20/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
European Investment       Bank,  100    Boulevard     Konrad       Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 (received at the
Adenauer.                                                          Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 November
                                                                   1998) by Sari Jouhki against the judgment delivered on
                                                                   16 September 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-215/97 between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court    of First Instance of                        European Communities
    30 September 1998 in Case            T-13/97 between
                                                                                (Case C-435/98 P)
    Antoinette Losch and the Court       of Justice of the
    European Communities, supported      by the Council of                                (1999/C 20/44)
    the European Union and the           Kingdom of the
    Netherlands;
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the          1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-215/97
                                                                   between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the European
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Case C-432/98 P.                                                   the European Communities on 3 December 1998 (received
                                                                   at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on
                                                                   30 November 1998) by Sari Jouhki, represented by Harri
                                                                   Ojala, lawyer, of Ojala & Urpelainen, Isokatu 16 B 16,
                                                                   90100 Oulu, Finland.
Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
the European Union against the judgment delivered on
30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-164/97 between S. Busacca and Others and the Court               Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
         of Auditors of the European Communities                       so far as it dismissed Ms Jouhki's action against the
                                                                       Commission;
                     (Case C-434/98 P)
                       (1999/C 20/43)
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of the selection board for
                                                                       Commission competition COM/B/973 of 5 September
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
                                                                       1996 not to admit Ms Jouhki to the competition; and
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-164/97 between
S. Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of               Ð declare that Ms Jouhki was entitled to take part in
Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                      competition COM/B/973.
1998 by the Council of the European Union, represented
by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Director in its Legal Service, and
Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal              The appellant also asks the Court of Justice to rule on
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          costs in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.
Office of Alessandro Morbilli, Director-General of the
Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment
Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer.                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The selection board for the competition was bound by the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of         wording of the competition notice as published.
    30 September 1998 in Case T-164/97 between Silvio
    Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the
    European Communities;                                          The decision of the Court of First Instance breaches
                                                                   Community law, in that the selection board for the
                                                                   competition was bound by the wording of the competition
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the
                                                                   notice as published.
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in             The selection board was obliged to take account of all the
Case C-432/98 P.                                                   certificates which Ms Jouhki produced before the
                                                                   time-limit fixed in the notice of competition for making
                                                                   applications.


title: Case C-325/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 24 August 1999 in the case of G. van de Water against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
C 333/16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
(4) What is the relationship between Article 5(6) and                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
    Article 5(7)(c) of the Directive?                                  der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 24 August
                                                                       1999 in the case of G. van de Water against Staatssecreta-
(5) If the answer to Question (1) is to the effect that the                                    ris van Financiën
    subsequent (tax deductible) work carried out (bodywork
    repairs and respraying) is not subject to tax on disposal of                                (Case C-325/99)
    the goods (car) under Article 5(6) of the Directive, is the
    deduction of input tax on these services to be adjusted                                     (1999/C 333/34)
    under Article 20(1)(b) of the Directive?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                               Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 24 August
                                                                       1999, received at the Court Registry on 31 August 1999, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the case of G. van de Water against
                                                                       Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following question:
                                                                       Can the (mere) holding of a product subject to excise duty
                                                                       within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Direc-
                                                                       tive 92/12/EEC (1) be regarded as a release for consumption
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-                    within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that Directive, if and in
finanzhof (Federa1 Finance Court) by order of that court               so far as duty has not already been levied on it pursuant to
of 15 July 1999 in the case of Finanzamt Düsseldorf-                   the applicable provisions of Community law and national
              Mettmann v Klaus Brandenstein                            legislation?
                         (Case C-323/99)                               (1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.
                         (1999/C 333/33)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
of 15 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on           der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 24 August
27 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                1999 in the case of Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ (formerly
Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann v Klaus Brandenstein on the              Woningbouwvereniging ‘Goed Wonen’) against Staatsse-
following question:                                                                          cretaris van Financiën
Under the first sentence of Article 5(6) of Directive                                           (Case C-326/99)
77/388/EEC (1), the application by a taxable person of goods
forming part of his business assets for his private use, where                                  (1999/C 333/35)
the value added tax on the goods in question or the component
parts thereof was wholly or partly deductible, is to be treated        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
as supplies made for consideration.                                    European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                       Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 24 August
1. Is this provision applicable where, although VAT on the             1999, received at the Court Registry on 31 August 1999, for
    goods themselves was not deductible, VAT was deductible            a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’
    on the services or supplies which the taxable person               (formerly Woningbouwvereniging ‘Goed Wonen’) against
    ordered or received in respect of those goods after their          Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:
    acquisition?
                                                                       1.     Is Article 5(3) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted
2. What does the term ‘component’ mean in the context of               as meaning that rights in rem entitling the holder thereof to
    this provision?                                                    use immovable property may be treated by the national
                                                                       legislature as corporeal rights only if the remuneration agreed
3. How is the basis of assessment to be determined for a               in respect of the grant, transfer, modification, waiver or
    disposal, where VAT is wholly or partly deductible, not on         termination of those rights is at least equivalent to the financial
    the goods disposed of, but on some of their components?            value of the property concerned?
4. Is the deduction of input tax which a taxable person has            2.     Are Article 13(B)(b) and Article 13(C)(a) of the Sixth
    claimed in respect of services or supplies for goods on the        Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the national
    purchase of which VAT was not deductible to be adjusted            legislature may treat the terms ‘leasing or letting’ as covering
    under Article 20 of Directive 77/388/EEC if the first sen-         not only leasing and/or letting in the sense applied to those
    tence of Article 5(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC is not appli-        terms by civil law but also any other form in which immovable
    cable?                                                             property is made available for use otherwise than by way of
                                                                       the supply thereof?
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
                                                                       (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case F-32/06: Action brought on  17 March 2006  — De la Cruz and Others v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/51

         Action brought on 17 March 2006 — De la Cruz and Others v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
   (Case F-32/06)
   (2006/C 131/93)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: María del Carmen De la Cruz (Galdakao, Spain) and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden et L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the grading given in the 28 April 2005 contract of employment which was to take effect on 1 May 2005 to classify the applicants at group II, implying the reinstatement of all the applicants' rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. group III, as from 1 May 2005.

               —

               Award the applicants: i) damages in form of a legal and regular pay in so included all derived financial rights (including pension). In that respect, the monthly difference of basic salary between a classification in group II and a classification in group III has been evaluated to EUR 536.89 for Mrs De la Cruz, Mrs Estrataetxe, Mrs Grados and Mr Moral and to EUR 474.57 for Mr Sánchez; ii) the interest for delay (intérêts de retard) on the above mentioned damages running as from 1 May 2005 until their full payment; iii) compensation for their prejudice to their career; iv) EUR 1 for each applicant to compensate their moral prejudice.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants were recruited as contract staff according to Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and classified in function group II. In their action, the applicants submit that, as they are performing some of their tasks with a clear level of liability and independency, they should have been classified in function group III.
   In their first plea, the applicants invoke mainly a violation of Article 80 of the CEOS, of Article 2 of the Annex to the CEOS, of the General implementing provision on the procedure governing the engagement and the use of contract staff at the Commission, of the principle of good administration and a manifest error of appreciation.
   In their second plea, they argue that their classification was not fixed with regard to their duties and responsibilities and to the situation of their colleagues working in other agencies and institutions. For that reason, they allege a violation of the principles of equal treatment and non discrimination as well as of the principle of equivalence of positions and grades.
   In their third plea, the applicants argue that the Staff Committee has not been properly consulted on the draft job descriptions and the Agency's draft guidelines on the classification of contract staff.
   Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Marie Louise Brichard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-95/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 166/25
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Patrick Salez against                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
         the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-92/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 166/51 )
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                   (Language of the case: French)                       Case T-16/97 0 ).
An action against the Commission of the European                        (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Patrick Salez, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Brigitte Nau against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       ( Case T-94/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/53
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                      (Language of the case: French)
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      by Brigitte Nau, residing at Strombeek-Bever ( Belgium),
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of Article 31
C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                         (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Minh-Hong Pham
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                           ( Case T-93/97)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 166/52 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                        Case T-16/97 ( M.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
by Minh-Hong Pham, residing in Brussels ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Marie Louise Brichard
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95/97)
— annul the Commission's decision of 27 June 1996                                                   ( 97/C 166/54 )
     rejecting      the   applicant's    request  that   it   give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31                             (Language of the case: French)
      ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     by Marie Louise Brichard, residing in Brussels, represented
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/26            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   31 . 5 . 97
by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                               expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
— annul the Commission's decision of 21 June 1996                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
    ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                 Case T- 16/97 (').
                                                                    (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Daniel Callebaut
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-97/97)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                                         ( 97/C 166/56 )
Case T-16/97 H.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                    by Daniel Callebaut, residing at Mondorf-les-Bains
                                                                    ( Luxembourg ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Leon Rappe against                Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
        the Commission of the European Communities                  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
                         (Case T-96/97)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          97/C 166/55
                                                                    — annul the Commission 's decision of 20 June 1996
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                         consideration to the possible application of Article 31
An action against the Commission of the European                         ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
by Leon Rappe, residing at Hoegaarden ( Belgium),                        adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an              expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                  Case T- 16/97 ( M.
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
    (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                  H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .


title: Case T-456/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/35

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — British Telecommunications v Commission
   (Case T-456/12) (1)

   (2016/C 314/47)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


               18.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/14

         Action brought on 13 March 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-1/06)
   (2006/C 117/05)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 March 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Per Andreas Bjørgan, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

                  Declare that the Kingdom of Norway, by amending the Norwegian gaming and lottery legislation in

                     ‘Lov av 29. august 2003 om endringer i pengespill- og lotterilovgivningen’

                  , which introduces a monopoly with regard to the operation of gaming machines, has infringed Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement.

               and

               2.

                  Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The case concerns a monopoly on the operation of gaming machines in Norway.

               —

               Norwegian Penal Code Sections 298 and 299 prohibit gambling unless permitted by specific legislation.

               —

               The Act of 28 August 1992 No 103 (the Gaming Act) coordinated several previously permitted gambling activities (Lotto, horserace and football betting) under the sole operation of Norsk Tipping AS, a company solely owned by the Norwegian government.

               —

               The Act of 24 February 1995 No 11 (the Lottery Act) defined gaming machines as a lottery which may only be operated in order to provide revenue for charitable causes. The Act specified who may operate gaming machines, including private operators.

               —

               In order to combat the growing problem of gambling addiction, the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament), through the Act of 29 August 2003 No 90 transferred the administration of lottery operations using gaming machines from the Lottery Act (which allows for private operators) to the Gaming Act (which grants Norsk Tipping AS exclusive rights of operation).

               —

               The amendments to the Norwegian legislation entail that existing operators be removed from the market and that gaming machine services can, from that point on, only be carried out within the framework of a state monopoly (Norsk Tipping AS).

               —

               Article 31 EEA prohibits all restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of an EC Member State or an EFTA State in the territory of any other of these States. This also applies to the setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any EC Member State or EFTA State established in the territory of any of these States.

               —

               Article 36 EEA prohibits all restrictions on the provision of services within the EEA in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.


title: Case T-845/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QG v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/30

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QG v Commission
   (Case T-845/16)
   (2017/C 053/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: QG (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet y A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA. 29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), granted by Spain to certain football clubs, infringes Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU, since the possibility of consolidating accounts brought about by the authorisation of four clubs to participate in different sports under Law 10/1990, as well as the application of the reduced tax rate under the same corporate tax, also constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market and, therefore, should be declared to be such by the European Commission.

               —

               consequently, provide for the withdrawal/annulment of the measure and require the Kingdom of Spain to recover from the beneficiaries the aid that is incompatible with the internal market, and order it to pay costs in that regard.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU.
   The applicant, a basketball club, expresses its agreement with the contested measure, inasmuch as it considers the measure introduced by Law 10/1990, consisting in more favourable treatment in terms of corporation tax by applying a reduced rate of taxation to certain football clubs, to be State aid incompatible with the internal market.
   Nonetheless the applicant considers that the Commission should have reached the same conclusion in respect of the tax privilege provided for in Law 10/1990 and which consists in permitting those same clubs to participate in different sports.
   Only the clubs that were able to participate in professional competitions in different sports were permitted to consolidate the accounts in respect of football and basketball, the main sports in Europe, with direct effects on the calculation of the corporate tax base. By consolidating the accounts, the significant receipts from football are reduced by the losses from basketball and, thus, the corporate tax base is significantly reduced, together with the tax to be paid.


title: Case C-125/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 25 March 2008 — G.C. Deschaumes v Belgian State

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 25 March 2008 — G.C. Deschaumes v Belgian State
   (Case C-125/08)
   (2008/C 142/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: G. Deschaumes

      Respondent: Belgian State
   Question referred
   Should Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) be construed as meaning that the prescribed communication of a customs debt to the person liable for payment can lawfully be effected only after the customs debt has been entered in the accounts or, in other words, that the communication of a customs debt to the person liable for payment, as prescribed in Article 221(1) of the CCC, must always be preceded by its entry in the accounts if it is to be lawful and to comply with Article 221(1)of the CCC?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-131/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Club Hotel Loutraki v European Commission, Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (Appeal — State aid — Operation of Video Lottery Terminals — Grant by a Member State of an exclusive licence — Decision finding no State aid — Article 108(3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4, 7 and 13 — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ — Date of the assessment — Article 296 TFEU — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘economic advantage’ — Joint assessment of the measures notified)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Club Hotel Loutraki v European Commission, Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP)
   (Case C-131/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Operation of Video Lottery Terminals - Grant by a Member State of an exclusive licence - Decision finding no State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 7 and 13 - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Date of the assessment - Article 296 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Joint assessment of the measures notified))
   (2017/C 053/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE, Kazino Aigaiou AE (represented by: I. Ioannidis, dikigoros, and S. Pappas, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (represented by: A. Tomtsis, dikigoros, and M. Petite, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-413/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 August 2011 — Germanwings GmbH v Amend

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 5 August 2011 — Germanwings GmbH v Amend
   (Case C-413/11)
   2011/C 319/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

      Defendant: Amend

      Question referred

   Is it compatible with the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union if, in order to remedy what would otherwise be unequal treatment, Regulation No 261/2004 (1) is interpreted as meaning that a passenger who is affected by a mere delay of more than three hours is entitled to compensation under Article 7 of the Regulation, although the Regulation provides for this only in the case of denied boarding or cancellation of the booked flight but, in the event of delay, restricts the passenger’s claims to assistance under Article 9 of the Regulation and, if the delay is for more than five hours, also assistance under Article 8(1)(a) of the Regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-861/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — C & J Clark International v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/47

         Action brought on 7 December 2016 — C & J Clark International v Commission
   (Case T-861/16)
   (2017/C 038/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (Somerset, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 245, p. 16);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, the Commission violated the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74, the Commission violated Article 266 TFEU;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of Footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of the [Invalidated Regulations]’, the Commission violated Article 1(1) and 10(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity);

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, the Commission violated Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, and that, in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, the Commission violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 176, p. 21.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial Tribunals, Southampton, by order of that court of 19 July 1996, in the case of Lisa Jacqueline Grant against South-West Trains Ltd (Case C-249/96)

text:
14. 9 . 96                I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 17
      ( ii ) they have the right to a pension at the age of 55              1 . Are Articles 4 8 and 5 1 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
              instead of the normal age of 60;                                   as meaning that the provisions of point 4 ( a ) or ( c ),
                                                                                depending on the relevant time, of Part J of Annex VI to
( d ) the worker is deprived of the status of Mental Health                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 are incompatible with
      Officer and the additional benefits attached thereto                       those Articles in so far as no account is taken of certain
      solely on the ground that her employment was part                          periods of work when calculating a pro rata benefit
      time ;                                                                     under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheids
                                                                                verzekering, for migrant workers ?
(e ) the national tribunal has held that the provisions
      described at ( c ) and ( d ) constitute discrimination on             2 . Is point 4 ( a ) or (c ), depending on the relevant time, of
      grounds of sex against women working part time in the                      Part J of Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , as
      care of the mentally ill ;                                                 they stood on 20 July 1991 and 17 June 1992
                                                                                respectively, to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
( f) the pension which the worker receives and the                               paid employment and periods treated as such completed
      additional benefits which they claim, are only payable                     in the Netherlands before 1 July 1967 include :
      to them as and from their respective retirements in 1 992
      and 1994 , after their claims have been brought before                     ( a ) periods during which the person concerned was
      the national tribunal ; and                                                      performing his compulsory military service under
                                                                                the Netherlands legislation;
(g) the calculation of the additional benefits from their
      respective retirement dates in 1992 and 1994 would
      involve counting their years of service prior to 1992 :                    ( b ) periods during which the person concerned was an
                                                                                enlisted member of the Netherlands armed forces
                                                                                and in that capacity came under a special statutory
       1 . From what date should the service on the workers                            insurance scheme against incapacity for work for
             be counted for the purpose of calculating the                             civil servants and persons treated as such ?
             additional benefits to which they are entitled
                                                                            3 . Is the answer to question 2 different if the periods during
                 ( i ) 8 April 1976                                              which the person concerned was performing his
                                                                                compulsory military service under the Netherlands
               ( ii ) 17 May 1990                                                legislation were completed within or outside the
                                                                                territory of the European Union ( at that time the
             ( iii ) some other and if so, what date ?                            European Community )?
       2 . Where the relevant national legislation restricts
             back-dating entitlement in the event of a successful
             claim to a period of two years prior to the date on
             which the claim was made , does this amount to the
             denial of an effective remedy under Community law
             and is the industrial tribunal obliged to disregard
             such provision in domestic law if it feels it necessary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial
             to do so ?                                                     Tribunals , Southampton, by order of that court of 19 July
                                                                             1996 , in the case of Lisa Jacqueline Grant against
                                                                                South-West Trains Ltd
                                                                                ( Case C-249/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/36 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by judgment of                         European Communities by order of the Industrial Tribunals
 that court of 16 July 1996 in the case of 1 . R. O.J. Grahame               of 1 9 July 1 996, which was received at the Court Registry on
  and 2 . L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene                 22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lisa
                              Bedrijfsvereniging                            Jacqueline Grant against South-West Trains Ltd, on the
                               ( Case C-248/96 )                             following questions :
                                 ( 96/C 269/35 )
                                                                             1 . It is ( subject to 6 below ) contrary to the principle of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                              equal pay for men and women established by Article 119
  the European Communities by order of the                                        of the Treaty establishing the European Community and
  Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam, of                      by Article 1 of Council Directive 75/1 17/EEC (') for an
  16 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                      employee to be refused travel concessions for an
  22 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . R. O.               unmarried cohabiting same-sex partner where such
 J. Grahame and 2 . L. M. Hollanders v. Bestuur van de                            concessions are available for spouses or unmarried
  Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging on the following                             opposite sex cohabiting partners of such an
  questions :                                                                     employee ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/ 18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
2 . For the purposes of Article 119 does 'discrimination                 — uphold the contentions put forward by the European
       based on sex ' include discrimination based on the                    Parliament at first instance, namely that the Court
       employee 's sexual orientation ?                                      should :
3 . For the purpose of Article 119 , does ' discrimination                  — dismiss the application,
       based on sex' include discrimination based on the sex of
       that employee 's partner ?                                           — make an appropriate order as to costs ,
4 . If the answer to question 1 is yes, does an employee, to                     and
       whom such concessions are refused, enjoy a directly
       enforceable community right against his employer ?
                                                                         — as regards the proceedings before the Court of Justice,
                                                                             also make an appropriate order as to costs .
5 . Is such a refusal contrary to the provisions of Council
       Directive 76/207/EEC ( 2 )?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6 . Is it open to an employer to justify such refusal if he can
       show ( a ) that the purpose of the concessions in question        — Inadmissibility of the ground of annulment of the Court
       is to confer benefits on married partners or partners in              of First Instance : the ground of annulment based on the
       an equivalent position to married partners and ( b ) that             formal difference between Competitions No PE/LA/91
       relationships between same-sex cohabiting partners                    and No PE/161 /LA was never relied on by the applicant
       have not traditionally been, and are not generally,                   at first instance . It would at least be illogical to prohibit
       regarded by society as equivalent to marriage, rather                 the applicant from putting forward new grounds during
       than on the basis of an economic or organizational                    the proceedings while allowing the Court of First
       reason relating to the employment in question ?                       Instance to do so of its own motion .
(') Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the     — Absence of an act adversely affecting the official and lack
      application of the principle of equal pay for men and women            of legal interest in bringing the action : the official
      ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).                                submitted his candidature only for Competition No
( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                 PE/LA/91 . It would be no less than surprising if a notice
      implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and         of competition for which the potential candiate did not
      women as regards access to employment, vocational training             in fact apply were to be considered to be an act adversely
      and promotion , and working conditions ( Of No L 39 , 14 . 2 .         affecting him . It is hard to understand how, in the
      1976 , p. 40 ).                                                        present case , a competition for which the applicant at
                                                                             first instance did not submit his candidature, although
                                                                             he was fully able to do so since he fulfilled all the
                                                                             requirements for acceptance , could in any way affect his
                                                                             legal situation .
Appeal brought on 22 July 1996 by the European
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996                 — Lack of repercussion of the differences between the two
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  notices on the review of Mr Gutierrez Quijano's
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                        application or on the selection of the candidates
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                              eventually accepted .
                                 Parliament
                          ( Case C-252/96 P )
                              ( 96/C 269/37 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                    Appeal brought on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                          European Union against the judgment delivered on 26 June
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities on 22 July 1996 by the European                     of the European Communities in Case T-91/95 between
Parliament, represented by Manfred Peter , Head of                       L. de Nil and C. Impens and the Council of the European
Division, and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana , of its Legal Service,                                           Union
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat                                     ( Case C-259/96 P )
of the European Parliament .
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/38 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 June 1996
— set aside the judgment in Case T-140/94 Enrique                        by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
        Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens v . Parliament (1 996 ),          European Communities in Case T-91 /95 between L. de Nil


title: Case T-346/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/61

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Duro Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)
   (Case T-346/07)
   (2007/C 269/110)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Duro Sweden AB (Gävle, Sweden) (represented by: R. Bird, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 3 July 2007 in Case No R 1065/2005-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of this appeal, and

               —

               order the grant of the application as a Community trade mark in accordance with the regulation.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EASYCOVER’ for goods in classes 19, 24 and 27 — application No 4 114 567

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal held that the trade mark application infringed Article 7(1)(b) on the basis that the trade mark application infringed Article 7(1)(c) without asserting any independent grounds for infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
   Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation as the Board of Appeal did not take all aspects of the trade mark applied for into account.


title: Case T-279/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 April 2006  — Degussa v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Cartels — Methionine market — Unique and continuous nature of the infringement — Fine — Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 — Degussa v Commission
   (Case T-279/02) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartels - Methionine market - Unique and continuous nature of the infringement - Fine - Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 - Presumption of innocence)
   (2006/C 131/68)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and W. Mölls, agents, assisted by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and S. Marquardt, agents)
   Re:
   Primarily, an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case C.37.519 — Methionine) (OJ 2003 L 255, p.1) and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by this decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Reduces to EUR 91 125 000 the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case C.37.519 — Methionine);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and 75 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay 25 % of its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Council to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002


title: Case T-395/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder) (European Union trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Windfinder — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Neologism — Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Windfinder R&L v EUIPO (Windfinder)
   (Case T-395/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Windfinder - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Neologism - Insufficiently direct and specific connection with certain goods and services covered by the mark applied for - Power to alter decisions))
   (2017/C 283/66)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: B. Schneider, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 (Case R 1206/2015-5), relating to the application for registration of the word sign Windfinder as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2016 (Case R 1206/2015-5) in so far as it refused registration of the word sign Windfinder for the goods and services at issue, with the exception of anemometers in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, and of meteorological information, meteorological forecast, meteorological information services and the supply of meteorological information in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement;

               2.

               Upholds the action brought by Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG before that Board of Appeal in accordance with the conditions set out at paragraph 1 of the operative part;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of Windfinder R&L’s action;

               4.

               Orders Windfinder R&L and EUIPO to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.6.2016.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 October 1998 in Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings - Admissibility - Urgency) (1999/C 1/30)

text:
4.1.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/15
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð order the Office to accord a filing date to Community
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               trade mark application No 000200006, submitted on
                                                                       19 April 1996;
                     of 23 October 1998
in Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                 the European Communities                         Ð order the Office to pay all the costs.
  (Interlocutory proceedings Ð Admissibility Ð Urgency)
                        (1999/C 1/30)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: English)                    Trade mark           Baby Dry' Ð
                                                                  concerned:           Application No 000200006.
                                                                  Product of           diapers for babies
In Case T-100/98 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in                service:
Harrow, Middlesex, England, represented by Raymond St             Decision             refusal of registration by the examiner
John Murphy, Solicitor, Merriman White, 3 King's Bench            contested before
Walk, Inner Temple, London, against Commission of the             the Board of
European Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð                      Appeal:
application for interim measures in the context of an
                                                                  Pleas in law         Ð infringement of      Article 7(1)(b) of
action seeking compensation for the damage which the
                                                                  relied on:               Regulation (EC)   No 40/94
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                                Ð infringement of      Article 7(1)(c) of
publication, under the Commission's responsibility, of a
                                                                                Regulation (EC)   No 40/94
fact sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and
qualifications for general and specialist medical                 Alternatively:       Ð infringement of Articles 7(3) and
practitioners Ð the President of the Court of First                                        62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Instance made an order on 23 October 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved.
                                                                  Action brought on 23 October 1998 by Una Film City
                                                                  Revue' GmbH against the European Parliament and
                                                                                Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-175/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/32)
Action brought on 6 October 1998 by The Procter &
Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                the Internal Market (OHIM)
                       (Case T-163/98)
                                                                  An action against the European Parliament and the
                        (1999/C 1/31)
                                                                  Council of the European Union was brought before the
                                                                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
               (Language of the case: French)                     23 October 1998 by Una Film City Revue' GmbH of
                                                                  Vienna, Austria, represented by Dr Rainer Borgelt, of the
                                                                  Düsseldorf Bar, and Professor Dr Manfred Dauses, of
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the             Bamberg, Germany, with an address for service in
Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Reding & Felten, 2 Rue
First Instance on 6 October 1998 by The Procter &                 J. P. Brasseur, Luxembourg.
Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United
States of America), represented by Thierry van Innis, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58
Rue Charles Martel.
                                                                  Ð Declare Directive 98/43/EC of the European
                                                                       Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  approximation of the laws, regulations and
should:                                                                administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                       relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco
                                                                       products (OJ 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9, enclosed as
Ð annul the Board of Appeal's decision of 31 July 1998;                Annex K3) to be null and void,


title: Case C-475/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 by order of that Court of 9 October 2003 in the case of Banca Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona

text:
C 21/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
—     Does Article 2621 of the Codice Civile (as amended by                Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-
      Legislative Decree No 61 of 11 April 2002), which                    mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
      provides for a sentence of imprisonment of up to                                                 lic of Austria
      18 months and consequently a maximum limitation
      period from the time when the offence is committed of                                          (Case C-476/03)
      four and a half years, satisfy those requirements? That
      occurs in a legal system which provides, after the
      investigating judge completes his investigation and the                                         (2004/C 21/30)
      public prosecutor brings criminal proceedings, for review
      by the investigating judge to ascertain that there is
      sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial and
      for the possibility of three tiers of courts before judgment         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
      is definitive and thus, in the case of a conviction, the             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      penalty is actually imposed. In addition, account must be            17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
      taken of the complexity of the findings required under               Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt and Dr
      Article 2621 of the Codice Civile, given the thresholds              Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      of criminal relevance set by Articles 2621, paragraphs 3
      and 4.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8; English Special Edition: Series-I I        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
    Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.                                                      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
                                                                                2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
                                                                                91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s
                                                                                railways (1) or, at any rate, by failing to inform the
                                                                                Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
Tributaria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 by order                           2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
of that Court of 9 October 2003 in the case of Banca                             Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against Agenzia                             95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) or,
                    Entrate Ufficio Cremona                                      at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
                                                                                the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                         (Case C-475/03)
                                                                           3.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
                          (2004/C 21/29)                                         administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
                                                                                2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
                                                                                infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
                                                                                use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (3) or,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-                          the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
taria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 (Cremona Tax Court,                     under that directive;
Second Chamber) of 9 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in                  4.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
the case of Banca Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against                   proceedings.
Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona on the following question:
Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that it
prohibits a charge to IRAP of the net value of production
deriving from the regular exercise of independent activity to              The period for transposition of those directives expired on
produce or exchange goods or to provide services?                          15 March 2003.
                                                                           (1) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 145 of 3.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 376 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                           (3) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 29.


title: Case T-594/10 P: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Acts adversely affecting the applicant — Implied refusal)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-594/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Acts adversely affecting the applicant - Implied refusal)
   2012/C 243/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 October 2010 in Case F-2/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that order.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 October 2010 in Case F-2/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-54/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v NV Firma Feryn

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v NV Firma Feryn
   (Case C-54/07)
   (2007/C 82/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Arbeidshof te Brussel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

      Respondent: NV Firma Feryn
   Questions referred

               —

               Is there direct discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC (1) of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin where an employer, after putting up a conspicuous job vacancy notice, publicly states:

                  ‘I must comply with my customers' requirements. If you say “I want that particular product or I want it like this and like that”, and I say “I'm not doing it, I'll send those people”, then you say “I don't need that door”. Then I'm putting myself out of business. We must meet the customers' requirements. This isn't my problem. I didn't create this problem in Belgium. I want the firm to do well and I want us to achieve our turnover at the end of the year, and how do I do that? — I must do it the way the customer wants it done!’?

               —

               Is it sufficient for a finding of direct discrimination in the conditions for access to paid employment to establish that the employer applies directly discriminatory selection criteria?

               —

               For the purpose of establishing that there is direct discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, may account be taken of the recruitment of exclusively indigenous fitters by an affiliated company of the employer in assessing whether that employer's recruitment policy is discriminatory?

               —

               What is to be understood by ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination ’within the terms of Article 8(1) of the Directive? How strict must a national court be in assessing facts which give rise to a presumption of discrimination?

                           (a)

                           To what extent do earlier acts of discrimination (public announcement of directly discriminatory selection criteria in April 2005) constitute ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination ’within the terms of Article 8(1) of the Directive?

                           (b)

                           Does an established act of discrimination in April 2005 (public announcement in April 2005) subsequently give rise to a presumption of the continuation of a directly discriminatory recruitment policy? Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, is it sufficient, in order to raise the presumption (that an employer operates and continues to pursue a discriminatory recruitment policy) that, in April 2005, in answer to the question whether, as an employer, he did not treat people from foreign and indigenous backgrounds in the same manner and was thus actually a bit racist, he publicly stated: ‘I must comply with my customers' requirements. If you say “I want that particular product or I want it like this and like that”, and I say “I'm not doing it, I'll send those people”, then you say “I don't need that door”. Then I'm putting myself out of business. We must meet the customers' requirements. This isn't my problem. I didn't create this problem in Belgium. I want the firm to do well and I want us to achieve our turnover at the end of the year, and how do I do that? — I must do it the way the customer wants it done!’?

                           (c)

                           Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, can a joint press release issued by an employer and the national body for combating discrimination, in which acts of discrimination are at least implicitly confirmed by the employer, give rise to such a presumption?

                           (d)

                           Does the fact that an employer does not employ any fitters from ethnic minorities give rise to a presumption of indirect discrimination when that same employer some time previously had experienced great difficulty in recruiting fitters and, moreover, had also stated publicly that his customers did not like working with fitters from ethnic minorities?

                           (e)

                           Is one fact sufficient in order to raise a presumption of discrimination?

                           (f)

                           Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, can a presumption of discrimination on the part of the employer be inferred from the recruitment of exclusively indigenous fitters by an affiliated company of that employer?

               —

               How strict must the national court be in assessing the evidence in rebuttal which must be produced when a presumption of discrimination within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Directive has been raised? Can a presumption of discrimination within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Directive in question be rebutted by a simple and unilateral statement by the employer in the press that he does not or does not any longer discriminate and that fitters from ethnic minorities are welcome; and/or by a simple declaration by the employer that his company, excluding the sister company, has filled all vacancies for fitters and/or by the statement that a Tunisian cleaning lady has been taken on and/or, having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, can the presumption be rebutted only by actual recruitment of fitters from ethnic minorities and/or by fulfilling commitments given in the joint press release?

               —

               What is to be understood by an ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive ’sanction, as provided for in Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC?
               Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, does the abovementioned requirement of Article 15 permit the national court merely to declare that there has been direct discrimination?
               Or does it, on the contrary, also require the national court to grant a prohibitory injunction, as provided for in national law? Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, to what extent is the national court further required to order the publication of the forthcoming judgment as an effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanction?

      (1)  OJ L 180, p. 22.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 December 1998 in Joined Cases C-173/96 and C-247/96 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha and from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Francisca Sánchez Hidalgo and Others v. Asociación de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva (C-173/96), and Horst Ziemann v. Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst (C-247/96) (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 48/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees'
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses
                                                                     or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that
                   of 10 December 1998
                                                                     the directive applies to a situation in which a public body
in Joined Cases C-173/96 and C-247/96 (references for a              which had contracted out its home-help service for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia            persons in need or awarded a contract for maintaining
de Castilla-La Mancha and from the Arbeitsgericht                    surveillance of some of its premises to a first undertaking
Lörrach): Francisca SaÂnchez Hidalgo and Others v.                   decides, upon expiry of or after termination of the
Asociación de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa                contract which it had with that first undertaking, to
Minerva (C-173/96), and Horst Ziemann v. Ziemann                     contract out that service or award that contract to a
Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst                     second undertaking, provided that the operation is
                         (C-247/96) (1)                              accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity
(Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers         between the two undertakings. The term economic entity'
                      of undertakings)                               refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets
                                                                     enabling an economic activity which pursues a specific
                        (1999/C 48/01)                               objective to be exercised. The mere fact that the service
       (Languages of the cases: Spanish and German)                  successively provided by the old and the new undertaking
                                                                     to which the service is contracted out or the contract is
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        awarded is similar does not justify the conclusion that a
         published in the European Court Reports)                    transfer of such an entity has occurred.
In Joined Cases C-173/96 and C-247/96: references to the             (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996 and OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
(Spain) (C-173/96) and by the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach
(Germany) (C-247/96) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between
Francisca SaÂnchez Hidalgo and Others and Asociación de                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva                                             (Fifth Chamber)
(C-173/96), and between Horst Ziemann and Ziemann
Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst                                         of 10 December 1998
(C-247/96) Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive              in Case C-221/97 P: Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and
77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of               Karl-Julius Thamann v. Commission of the European
the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding                                  Communities (1)
of employees' rights in the event of transfers of
                                                                     (Non-contractual liability of the Community Ð Control of
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,
                                                                      classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)
5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the                                          (1999/C 48/02)
Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
Gulmann and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; G. Cosmas,                                     (Language of the case: German)
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 1998,               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in which it has ruled:                                                        published in the European Court Reports)
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of                      In Case C-221/97 P: Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the             Karl-Julius Thamann, acting in the capacity of partners in