title: Removal from the register of C-261/97

text:
2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/13
result to be achieved, on each Member State to which it is                  Removal from the register of C-261/97 (1)
addressed, Member States are required to observe the time
                                                                                (98/C 137/26)
limits laid down in directives for their transposition. That
time limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directive
93/18/EEC and on 20 December 1994 in respect of
Directive 94/60/EC without the Italian Republic having             By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
comply therewith.                                                  removal from the register of Case C-261/97 (reference for
                                                                   a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Karl
(1) OJ L 104, 29.4.1993, p. 46.                                    Heinz Baumann v. Urssaf Lille.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          4. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                      of 17 March 1998
                                                                   (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
in Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Article 24 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duty to
provide assistance Ð Decision implicitly rejecting a
                            request)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (98/C 137/27)
                                                                                of 19 March 1998
                                                                   in Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos v. Commission of the
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                       European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
In Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the             Action for annulment Ð Concurrent disciplinary
Commission of the European Communities, assigned to                proceedings and criminal proceedings Ð Errors of
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Ispra (Italy),       assessment Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Articles 12, 13,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with a right          14, 21 and 86 of the Staff Regulations Ð Principle of
of audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, with an         proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Misuse
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         of powers)
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of                                    (98/C 137/28)
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð
application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission implicitly rejecting the request for assistance                        (Language of the case: French)
submitted by the applicant on 28 July 1994 and, second,
for compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              In Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,        Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 March                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1998, in which it:                                                 Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                   Gianluigi Valsesia, Denis Waelbroeck and Olivier
1. annuls the decision of the Commission implicitly                Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the decision
    rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the          of the Commission of 22 June 1995 removing the
    applicant on 28 July 1994;                                     applicant from his post without loss of entitlement to a
                                                                   retirement pension and for annulment of the decision of
                                                                   19 February 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant the token            by the applicant on 21 September 1995 against the
    sum of ECU 1 by way of compensation for the non-               decision of 22 June 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance
    material damage suffered;                                      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and
                                                                   K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          19 March 1998, in which it:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Terni by order of 24 January 1995 in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Ivana Rosi (Case C-26/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/7
marketing non-Community bananas than from marketing                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the same quantity of EC/ACP bananas.                                    Circondariale di Terni by order of 24 January 1995 in the
                                                                        criminal proceedings pending before it against Ivana Rosi
f 1 ) OJ No L 296 , 17 . 11 . 1994 , p. 33 .                                                   ( Case C-26/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/11 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
28 September 1994 in the case Land Rheinland-Pfalz                      European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Terni, of
v.       Alcan Deutschland             GmbH; Joined         Party:
      Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht                    24 January 1995, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                          ( Case C-24/95 )                              proceedings pending before it against Ivana Rosi on the
                             ( 95/C 74/10 )                             following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the                                 whether the definitions of 'waste ' and 'waste destined for
Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                        recovery' laid down in Council Directive 91/156/EEC (*),
of 28 September 1994 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 2 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        Council Directive 91/689/EEC (2 ) and Regulation ( EEC )
case of Land Rheinland-Pfalz v. Alcan Deutschland GmbH;
                                                                        No 259/93 ( 3 ) should at present continue to be understood
                                                                        and interpreted in the light of the previous case-law of the
Joined             party:         Oberbundesanwalt           beim       Court and whether at the same time those two definitions
Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Senior Federal Attorney at the
Federal Administrative Court), on the following                         may in every case be regarded as including all materials,
questions :
                                                                        however residual, derived from production or consumption
                                                                        cycles in a manufacturing or combustion process and, if so,
                                                                        whether those materials as well are to be regarded from the
1 . is the competent authority obliged, by reason of the                point of view of Community rules as being subject to the
      requirement to apply national law in such a way that              system established by the abovementioned directives;
      'the recovery required by Community law is not
      rendered practically impossible and the interests of the
      Community are taken fully into consideration', to
      revoke, in accordance with a final, binding decision of           whether a deactivation process intended merely to render
      the EC Commission ordering recovery, the aid decision             waste harmless may be included among the operations
      in question even if the authority has allowed the                 intended to make a residue re-usable and therefore as such
      preclusive time-limit which exists for that purpose under         falling outside the system laid down by the Community
      national law in the interest of legal certainty to                legislation on waste;
      elapse ?
2 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative :
                                                                        whether landfill tipping in hollows or embankmens may be
      is the competent authority obliged, by reason of the              regarded as the recovery of waste capable of being classified
       abovementioned requirement, to revoke, in accordance             as residues not governed by EEC legislation on waste;
      with a final, binding decision of the EC Commission
       ordering recovery, the aid decision in question even if
       the competent authority is responsible for the illegality
       of the aid decision to such a degree that revocation             whether waste incineration may be included among the
       appears to be a breach of good faith towards the                 recovery of materials simply because marketable residues
       recipient ?                                                      are obtained therefrom and may consequently fall outside
                                                                        the system laid down by the Community legislation on
                                                                        waste and in particular outside the incineration rules;
 3 . If the replies to Questions 1 and 2 are in the
       affirmative :
       is the competent authority obliged, by reason of the             whether waste may be classified as a re-usable residue
       abovementioned requirement, to demand, in                        without its characteristics or purpose being defined to that
       accordance with a final, binding decision of the EC              end and may thus fall outside the scope of the EEC
       Commission ordering recovery, the repayment of the aid           legislation on waste;
       which was granted even if such demand is excluded by
       national law because the gain no longer exists and in the
       absence of bad faith on the part of the recipient of the
       aid ?                                                            whether waste which is merely ground without its
                                                                        characteristics being altered in any way may become a
                                                                         residue falling outside the EEC legislation on waste where
 ---pagebreak--- No C 74/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
the future reutilization of such ground residue has not been                     permanently in a single unit from a financial and
established.                                                                     economic point of view ?
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                                  2.5 . Is an exchange of shares which is carried out in
(2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                                      order to bring about a horizontal setting-off of tax
(3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                          losses between the participant undertakings
                                                                                within a fiscal unit as referred to in Article 15 of
                                                                                the Wet op de Vennootschapsbelasting ( Law on
                                                                                CorporationTax) 1969 a valid commercial reason
                                                                                for the exchange for the purposes of Article 1 1 of
                                                                                the Directive ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 26 January 1995
in the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der
        Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2
                          ( Case C-28/95 )                             Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Société Commerciale
                             95/C 74/12 )                              des Potasses et de l'Azote and by Enterprise Minière et
                                                                       Chimique against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-30/95 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 26 January                                             95/C 74/13 )
1995, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                      An action originally brought before the Court of First
the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der                           Instance by Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote
Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 on the                       and by Enterprise Miniere et Chimique was referred to the
following questions:                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       8 February 1995 . The Cour^of First Instance made an order
1 . May questions be referred to the Court of Justice                 declining jurisdiction and transferred the action, originally
     concerning the interpretation of the provisions and              registered as Case T-88/94, to the Court of Justice for a
     scope of a directive of the Council of the European              ruling on the application for annulment.
     Communities even where the directive is not directly
     applicable to the specific circumstances of the case but it      The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a
     is the national legislature's intention that those               notice in Official Journal No C 103 of 11 April 1994,
     circumstances are to be treated in the same manner as a          p. 13 .
     situation to which the directive does apply?
2. If Question 1 above is answered in the affirmative:
     2.1 . Can there Be an exchange of shares within the
           meaning of Article 2 (d ) of Council Directive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
           90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 if the acquiring                Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court
           company within the meaning of Article 2 (h) does           of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sari Polypieces v.
           not itself carry on a business ?                                Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique
                                                                                (Case C-33/95 )
     2.2 . Is an exchange of shares within the meaning of
           Article 2 (d) precluded by the fact that the same                                    ( 95/C 74/14 )
           natural person who was the sole shareholder in,
           and director of, the acquired company before the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           exchange is the director of, and sole shareholder          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
           in, the acquiring company after the exchange ?             Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Saint Nazaire, of
                                                                      19 December 1994, which was received at the Court
     2.3 . Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning          Registry on 13 February 1995 .
           of Article 2 ( d ) only if its effect is to merge the
           business of the acquiring company and that of
           another permanently in a single unit from a                The Regional Court asks the Court ofJustice to give a ruling
           financial and economic point of view?                      on the following question:
     2.4. Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning           is the present system for taxing motor vehicles under Article
           of Article 2 (d ) only if its effect is to merge the       1599 G of the French General Tax Code compatible with
           businesses of two or more acquired companies               Article 95 of the EEC Treaty, in that it provides for the


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 314, 18.12.2004

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/48

         (2005/C 6/92)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

      OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

      OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

      OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

      OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

      OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-427/11: Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/21

         Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Laboratoire Bioderma v OHIM — Cabinet Continental (BIODERMA)
   (Case T-427/11)
   2011/C 298/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoire Bioderma (Lyons, France) (represented by: A. Teston, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cabinet Continental (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011;

               —

               Reject the application for a declaration of invalidity of the registered trade mark made by Cabinet Continental;

               —

               Order OHIM and/or the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present action;

               —

               Order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BIODERMA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 — Community trade mark No 3 136 892.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Laboratoire Bioderma.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cabinet Continental.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was made on the basis of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration that Community trade mark No 3 136 892 is invalid.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as the contested decision is incorrect as regards inter alia the meaning of the mark concerned in Greek and the perception of that mark by the Greek public.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 September 2003 in Case C-437/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 92/12/EEC and 92/81/EEC — Tax on lubricating oils — Excise duty on mineral oils)

text:
C 275/16                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
2.    Such proof must make it possible to establish, without the             1.    Declares that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils
      slightest ambiguity, that the compensating products have                     under the first paragraph of Article 62 of Legislative Decree
      resulted from processing of the temporary export goods.                      No 504 of 26 October 1995, ‘Testo unico delle disposizioni
                                                                                legislative concernenti le imposte sulla produzione e sui consumi
3.    It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the           e relative sanzioni penali e amministrative’ (Consolidated Text
      circumstances of the main proceedings, whether or not the                    of Legislative Provisions relating to duties on production and
      economic operator has adduced that proof.                                    consumption and related criminal and administrative penalties)
                                                                                beyond the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned
4.    If so, the amount of the import duty which would be applicable               opinion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      to the temporary export goods on the basis of their correct tariff           under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 Feb-
      heading may be deducted when the compensating products are                   ruary 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject
      released for free circulation.                                               to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring
                                                                                of such products, and Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/
                                                                                81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.                                                        structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by
                                                                                Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 25 September 2003
                                                                                of 23 September 2003
in Case C-437/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            in Case C-452/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Margarethe Ospelt and
                                                                                Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directives 92/12/EEC and 92/81/EEC — Tax on lubricating
                                                                             (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                oils — Excise duty on mineral oils)
                                                                             (now Article 56 EC) — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
                                                                             EEA Agreement — Prior authorisation procedure for the
                            (2003/C 275/26)                                  acquisition of agricultural and forestry plots — Admissi-
                                                                                bility — Conditions)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/27)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           (Language of the case: German)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-437/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross) v Italian Republic (Agent:
I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello): Application for a                   In Case C-452/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
declaration that, by retaining in force a tax on lubricating oils,           EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February                   Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung,
1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to                     on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                   amendment, Article 12 EC) and Articles 73b to 73d, 73f
such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), and Article 8(1)(a) of                   and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC to 60 EC), the
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                        Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral                  J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
94/74/EEC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46), the                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;                      Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
judgment on 25 September 2003, in which it:                                  23 September 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-159/05: Action brought on 22 April 2005 by unipor-Ziegel Marketing GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Action brought on 22 April 2005 by unipor-Ziegel Marketing GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-159/05)
   (2005/C 171/43)
   Language of the application: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 2005 by unipor-Ziegel Marketing GmbH, Munich (Germany), represented by A. Beschorner and B. Glaser, lawyers.
   The other party before the Board of Appeal was Ewald Dörken AG, Herdecke (Germany).
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of 18 February 2005 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market — R 491/04-2-DELTA;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity is sought:

               The word mark ‘DELTA’ for goods in Classes 6 and 19 (Community trade mark No 683458).

               Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

               Ewald Dörken AG.

               Applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

               The applicant.

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, since the registered trade mark lacks the properties required of a Community trade mark;

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, since the registered trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character;

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, since the registered trade mark needs to be kept free for trade and its registration constitutes an impermissible monopolisation.


title: Case C-315/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria), lodged on 9 July 2007 — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria), lodged on 9 July 2007 — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt
   (Case C-315/07)
   (2007/C 269/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Klagenfurt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH

      Defendant: Claudia Schmidt
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a rule of a Member State which prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, if market access for Community goods is possible only by way of an additional burden on those goods in the form of the costs involved in changing marketing structures and making changes to, and extending, product ranges?
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Does a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, prohibits the sale of items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, such silver jewellery constitute a justifiable and proportionate measure which precludes the right of an individual to sell items of silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery?


title: Action brought on 9 November 1998 by Jean-François Ferrandi against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-183/98) (1999/C 1/34)

text:
4.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/17
At the beginning of 1994, the Niedersächsische Landesent-          The applicant claims that the Court should:
wicklungsgesellschaft mbH (Nileg), which is wholly
owned by the Land Niedersachsen, acquired Westerkamp
along with other pieces of land, but insisted on the               Ð annul the implicit decision of the Commission
removal of the converter steel dusts. The applicant was                 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 6 April 1998;
therefore assigned the task under a business management
contract between it and Nileg of ensuring the appropriate
recycling or disposal of those filter dusts, for which it          Ð declare that complaint admissible and well founded,
received the sum of DEM 61 640 000.                                     and confirm that the applicant is entitled to sickness
                                                                        cover, to have his pension recalculated, to the transfer
                                                                        of his additional retirement pension entitlement
                                                                        acquired by voluntary contributions in France and to
In the contested decision, the Commission regarded the                  an invalidity pension;
payment of that amount to the applicant, inter alia, as aid
incompatible with the ECSC Treaty and the common
market, which was improperly paid without prior                    Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
notification to the Commission in accordance with
Article 6 of Decision No 2496/96/ECSC. It further
required the Federal Republic of Germany to annul that             The applicant further claims that the Court should:
aid and demand its repayment.
                                                                   Ð award compensation for the damage suffered by him,
The applicant maintains that the Commission has                         the amount of which he reserves the right to quantify;
misinterpreted Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, and
wrongly assumed in its decision that the payments by
Nileg of DEM 61 640 000 constituted aids.                          Ð order the Commission to pay the sum of FRF 50 000
                                                                        in respect of irrecoverable expenses which it would be
                                                                        inequitable for him to have to bear.
The Commission gave no explanation in the contested
decision as to why the amount paid on the basis of a               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
bilateral contract between the applicant and Nileg
constituted aid. On the contrary, the payments were made
pursuant to a bilateral business management contract               The applicant, a former official of the Commission,
containing no aid elements. Even in the course of the              contests the defendant's refusal to allow his claim
implementation of the exchange contract, no facts arose            concerning, in particular:
which were relevant to aids. In reality, the expenditure
incurred by the applicant in fulfilment of the exchange
contract was significantly higher than the consideration           Ð the transfer to the Community scheme of the
stipulated and paid under the contract.                                 additional pension rights acquired by way of voluntary
                                                                        contributions in France in respect of the period from
                                                                        1972 to 1974, when he worked abroad;
                                                                   Ð the need to recalculate his pension on the basis of his
                                                                        present age;
Action brought on 9 November 1998 by Jean-FrancËois
Ferrandi against the Commission of the European                    Ð his loss of entitlement to national social security cover;
                       Communities                                      and
                     (Case T-183/98)
                      (1999/C 1/34)                                Ð non-payment of an invalidity pension.
                                                                   He states, with regard to his situation, that he was
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   removed from his post and then subsequently reinstated
                                                                   pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice
                                                                   in January 1985. Upon his falling ill following his
An action against the Commission of the European                   reinstatement and applying for the benefits payable under
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, only Article 73
Instance of the European Communities on 9 November                 was applied to him. In 1993 he applied for early
1998 by Jean-FrancËoise Ferrandi, residing in Ajaccio              retirement; that application was ultimately granted.
(France), represented by Jean-Baptiste Giuseppi, of the            Finally, the Commission re-employed him on a contractual
Ajaccio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          basis for a period of five years, but its financial controller
the Chambers of J. L. Biancarelli, 18 Rue J. P. Brasseur.          did not validate that contract.
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/18               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.1.1999
With regard to the pleas in law and main arguments upon                    Removal from the register of Case T-68/94 (1)
which he relies, the applicant merely states that:                                           (1999/C 1/35)
Ð he started once again to draw his retirement pension
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    at the age of 54; consequently, there appear to be
    justifiable reasons for recalculating that pension;
                                                                    By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Fourth
Ð he was unable to apply for the transfer of the pension            Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    rights in issue until such time as he had the                   Instance of the European Communities ordered the
    opportunity of acquiring them by voluntary                      removal from the register of Case T-68/94: Edoard Arends
    contributions, which recently became possible in                v. Commission of the European Communities.
    France. He considers in that regard that it is
    particularly unjust and inconsistent, in view of the            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
    events which have occurred, to invoke a time-bar
    against him. In addition, the meagreness of his pension
    is such that, in his view, an exception should be made
    in his case, that exception being justifiable on the
    ground of ordinary common sense;
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-264/94 (1)
Ð he does not enjoy the benefit of Community medical
                                                                                (1999/C 1/36)
    cover, even though he is no longer covered under any
    national scheme.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Lastly, the applicant states that he is not in receipt of any
invalidity pension, despite the fact that his invalidity has        By order of 3 November 1998 the President of the Fourth
been recognised by the Commission. He pleads in that                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
regard infringement of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations,         Instance of the European Communities ordered the
which he had asked to be applied to him, inasmuch as the            removal from the register of Case T-264/94: A. G. van den
Commission refused that request on the pretext of his               Akker v. Council of the European Union and Commission
future removal from his post, at a time when he was still           of the European Communities.
an official.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 275, 1.10.1994.


title: Case C-17/04: Action brought on 21 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 59/20                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
            —    § 1(1), § 3(1), § 35 and § 37 of the Muster-             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                 bauordnung do not contain any sufficiently
                 clear workplace or protection rules for sky-
                 lights, and
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
            —    § 3(1) point 1, and § 20 of the Arbeitsstätten-
                 verordnung do not contain sufficiently binding
                 rules for loading ramps,
                                                                          The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive
      b)    and also by failing to inform the Commission of the           into domestic law expired on 27 November 2002.
            amendment of the laws at issue, the Federal Republic
            of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
            Articles 3 and 10 of Council Directive 89/654/                (1) OJ L 309 of 27.11.2001, p. 1.
            EEC (1) of 30 November 1989 concerning the mini-
            mum safety and health requirements for the work-
            place (first individual directive within the meaning
            of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      of the proceedings.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-20/04)
The period for implementing the directive expired on
31 December 1992 without the Federal Republic of Germany
having adopted the necessary provisions in order to comply                                         (2004/C 59/34)
with its obligations under Article 3 in conjunction with
Annex I, point 4.4, third sentence, point 10.1, first sentence,
point 10.2 and point 14.1 of the directive.
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
(1 ) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1.
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 January
                                                                          2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Action brought on 21 January 2004 by the Commission                       the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain
                                                                          1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                           (Case C-17/04)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2002/50/EC of 6 June 2003
                                                                                adapting to technical progress Council Directive 1999/
                           (2004/C 59/33)                                       36/EC on transportable pressure equipment (1), or, in any
                                                                                event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                                French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       that directive;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 Janu-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana of the Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
      Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and             1 January 2003.
      of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants and in any event by failing to com-               (1) OJ 2002 L 149, p. 28.
      municate those measures to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;


No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Pleno da Secção do Contencioso Tributário) by judgment of that court of 10 July 1996 in the case of Fábrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas (Case C-325/96)

text:
No C 354/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23 . 11 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio,                      liable in the final analysis to repay the reduction and
Exinos ( Greece ) by order of that court of 24 July 1995 in the              premium ?
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
             against Athanasias Simou and others                     (')   OJ No L 110 , 29 . 4 . 1988 , p . 35 .
                        ( Case C-324/96 )                            (2)   OJ, English Special Edition , 1970 ( I ), p. 206 .
                                                                     ( 5)  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 16 .
                          ( 96/C 354/38 )                            (4 )  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 17 .
                                                                     (5)   OJ No L 187, 19 . 7 . 1990 , p . 23 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               (6)   OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p . 34 .
European Communities by order of the Irinodikio [Small
Claims Court], Exinos of 24 July 1995 , received at the Court
Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
v. Athanasias Simou and others on the following                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal
questions :                                                          Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
                                                                     Tributário ) by judgment of that court of 10 July 1996 in the
1 . Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1 1 14/88 ( 1 ) amending        case of Fabrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70 ( 2 ) valid,                                 Subdirector-Geral das Alfandegas
    inasmuch as it provides that, in the event of the                                           ( Case C-325 /96 )
    maximum guaranteed quantity for the production of
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/39 )
    leaf tobacco in the whole of the Community being
    exceeded , the intervention prices and premiums are to
    be reduced, generally and without distinction, and               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    without there being any relation between the price               European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
    reduction and whether the producer was guilty of an              Tribunal Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
    overrun in production or not ?                                   Tributário ) [ Supreme Administrative Court ( Division for
                                                                     Fiscal Matters sitting in plenary session )] of 10 July 1996 ,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October
2 . Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 1251 /89 (■') and 1252/89 ( 4 )       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de
    valid as regards the laying down of maximum                      Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against Subdirector-Geral
    guaranteed quantities for the Tsebelia tobacco variety of        das Alfandegas ( Deputy Director General of Customs ) on
    the 1989 harvest and does the application thereof                the following questions :
    infringe the general principles of the prohibition of the
    retroactive application of Community legislation , of the
    protection of the legitimate expectations of producers           1 . Should Article 28 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
    and purchasers and processors of tobacco, and the                       No 3677/86 ( 1 ) of 24 November 1986 be interpreted as
    principle of legal certainty ?                                          meaning that the six-month time-limit prescribed
                                                                            therein cannot be extended ?
3 . If the reply to the preceding question is affirmative, then
                                                                     2 . Or should that provision instead by interpreted as
    in view of the finding by the Commission of actual
                                                                            meaning that the general rule for granting extensions
    overproduction and an infringement by 44,1 % of the
                                                                            provided for in Article 27 of that Regulation and in the
    maximum guaranteed quantities of the Tsebelia and
                                                                             second subparagraph of Article 14 ( 2 ) of Council
    Mavra varieties of the 1989 harvest, and the imposition                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 1999/85 ( 2 ) of 16 July 1985 is to
    for that reason of a reduction in premium and                            be applied to the said time-limit ?
    intervention price in the abovementioned amount of
    15 % , is Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2046/90 ( 5 )
                                                                     (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of 24 November 1986
    valid and may we apply, as is contended for by the
                                                                           laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation
    applicant, clause 8 of the cultivation contracts entered               ( EEC ) No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements
    into      under      Commission       Regulation     ( EEC )           ( OJ No L 351 , 12 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 ).
    No 4263/8 8 ( 6 ) ? If the prices or the premium are             ( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 20 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .
    adjusted pursuant to Article 4 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
    No 727/70, is the contract price to be adjusted in line
    with the change in the price and premiums ?
4 . Are the factors which in 1991 led the Court of Justice in
    Case C-368/89 to annul the regulation laying down                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
    maximum guaranteed quantities for the 1988 harvest of            Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of
    the Bright variety likewise present in this case in view of      14 August 1996 , in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against T. H.
    the fact that the Commission made the same mistake in                                Jennings ( Harlow Pools ) Ltd
    delaying the determination of maximum guaranteed                                            ( Case C-326/96 )
    quantities for the 1989 harvest ?                                                             ( 96/C 354/40 )
5 . Finally, in the event that the Court of Justice should rule      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    that the regulations in question are valid, then who is          European Communities by an order of the Employment


title: Case C-447/14 P: Order of the President of the Court of 12 March 2015 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg, in liquidation v European Commission, Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG, SecAnim GmbH, Knochen-und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 March 2015 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg, in liquidation v European Commission, Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co. KG, SecAnim GmbH, Knochen-und Fett-Union GmbH (KFU)
   (Case C-447/14 P) (1)

   (2015/C 213/39)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case C-413/03: Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 275/38                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         15.11.2003
—    the possibility of giving notification of an order to leave                ple, the ordering of a specific inspection as to fitness
     the territory to citizens of the Union who have not                        for human consumption or a restriction to certain
     produced the documents necessary for the issue of a                        distribution channels?
     residence permit within the prescribed period.
                                                                          2.    Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
     A Member State may refuse or terminate the right of                        of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
     residence of a citizen of the Union only if the conditions                 ember 1987 require that the product to be exported be
     of this right are not or are no longer fulfilled. By contrast,             of average quality, and does it therefore disqualify from
     the fact that the administrative procedures for the grant                  the grant of an export refund a product of inferior quality,
     of the residence permit evidencing the right have not                      which, however, usually appears under the description of
     been complied with may not lead to a penalty such as                       the object of trade given in the refund application? Is that
     refusal to grant the right of residence or removal from                    also the case where the inferior quality has in no way
     the territory, which would effectively deny the actual                     affected the completion of the commercial transaction?
     right of residence conferred and guaranteed by the Treaty.
     The notification of an order to leave the territory may be
     based not on exclusively administrative grounds, but on              (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
     facts leading to the conclusion that the person concerned
     does not fulfil the conditions set for his right of residence
     by one of the relevant directives.
(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.
(2) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485.
(3) OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14.                                                 Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission
(4) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                                         of the European Communities against Ireland
(5) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28.
                                                                                (Case C-413/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/58)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                  Justice of the European Communities on 2 October 2003 by
of by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de                         by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
Produits Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                    in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-409/03)                                  The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 275/57)                                  1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                                                                                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or by
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                                failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 July 2003, received at the Court
                                                                                Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
Registry on 1 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                                of this Directive.
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de Produits
Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following questions:                                                      2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
1.   Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
     of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) of                     Pleas in law and main arguments
     27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
     for the application of the system of export refunds on
     agricultural products require that the manufacture and               The period within which the directive had to be transposed
     distribution of the products in question be subject only             expired on 17 October 2002.
     to generally valid legal conditions as they apply to any
     product of that type, and does it consequently disqualify
     from the grant of an export refund a product to which                (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
     special restrictions apply, in particular as regards its
     production, treatment or distribution, such as, for exam-


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-206/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne): Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l'académie de Reims (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — French civil and military retirement pension scheme — Entitlement to a retirement pension with immediate effect for women only)

text:
16.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 44/5
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                 l’académie de Reims, intervener: Syndicat général de l’Éduca-
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,              tion nationale et de la Recherche publique CFDT de la Marne
A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans,               (SGEN CFDT 51), on the interpretation of Article 119 of the
Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, Registrar: R. Grass,              EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
has given a judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has                  replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), and Council Directive
ruled:                                                                     79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implemen-
                                                                           tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                                                                           in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24), the Court
Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November            (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the
1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system          Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges,
for certain Community aid schemes, read together with Council              Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification             judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
and registration of animals and Articles 6(5) and 13 of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down
detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control      Pensions provided under a scheme such as the French retirement
system for certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Com-               scheme for civil servants fall within the scope of Article 119 of the
mission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995, must be                 EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
interpreted as meaning that entitlement to a compensatory allowance        by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC).
must be refused, except in cases of force majeure, solely because of the
absence of any entries in the register of animals kept by the farmer.
                                                                           The principle of equal pay for men and women enshrined in
                                                                           Article 119 of the Treaty is infringed by a provision of national law
(1) OJ C 163, 10.6.2000.                                                   such as Article L.24-I-3o(b) of the Civil and Military Retirement
                                                                           Pensions Code which, in providing that only female civil servants
                                                                           whose husbands suffer from a disability or incurable illness making
                                                                           it impossible for them to undertake any form of employment are
                                                                           entitled to a retirement pension with immediate effect, deprives male
                                                                           civil servants in the same situation of that right.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (1) OJ C 211, 22.7.2000.
                         (Second Chamber)
                       of 13 December 2001
in Case C-206/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne):                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l’académie de Reims (1)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal
treatment for men and women — Applicability of Article 119                 in Case C-340/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have                                    munities v Michael Cwik (1)
been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive
79/7/EEC — French civil and military retirement pension
scheme — Entitlement to a retirement pension with immedi-                  (Appeal — Officials — Article 17, second paragraph, of the
                     ate effect for women only)                            Staff Regulations — Freedom of expression — Limits —
                                                                                Statement of reasons)
                           (2002/C 44/08)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/09)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(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-206/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Aministratif de Châlons-en-Champagne                    In Case C-340/00 P: Commission of the European Communi-
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               ties (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck), appeal
before that court between Henri Mouflin and Recteur de                     against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-164/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment — Actions for damages)

text:
C 44/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 12 December 2002                                                        of 12 December 2002
in Case T-164/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the                      in Case T-181/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                  European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement                (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement
of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and                     of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —                     equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                       Actions for damages)                                                       Actions for damages)
                          (2003/C 44/43)                                                             (2003/C 44/44)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-181/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-
In Case T-164/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-                 mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                 represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,
represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,                 with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                  Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of
Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of                   the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to
the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the              the post of Head of Unit 1 ‘Post and telecommunications,
post of Head of Unit 2 ‘Basic industries’ within Directorate E             information society coordination’ within Directorate C ‘Infor-
‘Cartels, basic industries and energy’ within the Directorate-             mation, communication and multimedia’ within the Director-
General for Competition (COM/091/00) and of its decision to                ate-General for Competition (COM/090/99) and of its decision
appoint a different applicant to the post and an application for           to appoint a different applicant to the post and an application
damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                     for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
                                                                           composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the              Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:               Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;              1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;                              2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;
3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                            3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                (1 ) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.


title: Case C-341/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg by order of 1 September 1999 in the case of SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v Rashad Wali

text:
C 352/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.12.1999
1.     Do payments which a new shareholder, allowed to                      (a) requires undertakings, other than that on which the
acquire the new shares on an increase in capital (where the                     monopoly to operate the universal service has been
pre-emptive right of the existing shareholders is excluded),                    conferred, to pay, even when providing ‘non-universal’ or
does not make itself but makes through its parent company                       ‘value-added’ services, the postal dues payable for the basic
amount to ‘a contribution of assets of any kind’ within the                     ordinary postal service, which in such a case is not in
meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of                   actual fact provided by the monopoly-holder.
17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
capital? (1)
                                                                            (b) directly allocates the proceeds of those dues to the
                                                                                undertaking entrusted with the operation of the universal
2.     Do payments which a new shareholder, allowed to                          service, without there being any offsetting or control
acquire the new shares on an increase in capital (where the                     mechanism to preclude the allocation of cross-subsidies to
pre-emptive right of the existing shareholders is excluded),                    non-universal services.
makes not to the company increasing its capital but to its
subsidiary companies amount to ‘a contribution of assets of
any kind’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Directive
69/335/EEC?
3.     Do payments which have not yet been made amount to
‘a contribution of assets of any kind’ within the meaning of
Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC?
4.     Is the capital duty to be paid by the company a ‘liability’
or ‘expense’ which, in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of
Directive 69/335/EEC, is to be deducted from the basis of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
assessment?                                                                 Korneuburg by order of 1 September 1999 in the case of
                                                                                SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v Rashad Wali
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                                (Case C-341/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/34)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                  European Communities by order of 1 September 1999 from
di Genova by judgment of that court of 21 June 1999 in                      the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
the case of TNT Traco SpA against Poste Italiano and                        (Republic of Austria), which was received at the Court Registry
 Michele Carbone, Raffaele Ciriolo and Clemente Marino                      on 14 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                            SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v Rashad Wali on the following
                                                                            question:
                          (Case C-340/99)
                          (1999/C 352/33)                                   On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                                                                            Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
                                                                            down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Civile di                 counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
Genova (Genova District Court) of 21 June 1999, received at                 Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
the Court Registry on 13 September 1999, for a preliminary                  situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
ruling in the case of TNT Traco SpA v Poste Italiano and                    the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
Michele Carbone, Raffaele Ciriolo and Clemente Marino on the                the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
following questions:                                                        toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                            regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
Do the provisions of the EC Treaty, and in particular                       his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
Articles 86 and 90 thereof, preclude a Member State, in                     registered office in a non-member country?
organising its postal service, from maintaining in force legis-
lation which, though distinguishing between so-called ‘univer-
sal’ services in respect of which exclusive rights are conferred
on a private-law undertaking and non-universal services
offered and provided under a regime of free competition:


title: Case C-2/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl, Eolica di Altamura Srl v Regione Puglia (Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special areas of conservation forming part of the Natura 2000 European Ecological Network — Directives 2009/28/EC and 2001/77/EC — Renewable energy sources — National rules — Prohibition on the location of wind turbines not intended for self-consumption — No assessment of the environmental implications of the project)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl, Eolica di Altamura Srl v Regione Puglia
   (Case C-2/10) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Special areas of conservation forming part of the Natura 2000 European Ecological Network - Directives 2009/28/EC and 2001/77/EC - Renewable energy sources - National rules - Prohibition on the location of wind turbines not intended for self-consumption - No assessment of the environmental implications of the project)
   2011/C 269/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini Sarl, Eolica di Altamura Srl

      Defendant: Regione Puglia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia — Interpretation of Directive 2001/77/EC 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 (OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33), Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16), Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Regional and national legislation prohibiting the location of any wind energy systems not intended for self-consumption in the sites of Community importance (SCIs) and special protection areas (SPAs) forming part of the ‘Natura 2000’ network — Failure to carry out an impact assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, Directive 2001/77/EC 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 and Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation which prohibits the location of wind turbines not intended for self-consumption on sites forming part of the Natura 2000 European Ecological Network, without any requirement for a prior assessment of the environmental impact of the project on the site specifically concerned, on condition that the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality are respected.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-465/02: Action brought on 30 December 2002 (faxed on 27 December 2002) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.3.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/11
Action brought on 30 December 2002 (faxed on                                    legislative provisions themselves and by the fact that the
27 December 2002) by the Federal Republic of Germany                            Community makes provision for the grant of aid for the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            manufacture of Feta on the Aegean islands.
                                                                          —     Infringement of Council Regulation No 2081/92 and of
                         (Case C-465/02)                                        Article 253 EC.
                          (2003/C 55/19)                                  (1 ) OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities by the Federal Republic of Germany on
30 December 2002 (faxed on 27.12.2002), represented by                    Action brought on 30 December 2002 by the Kingdom
Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Bundesministerium             of Denmark against the Commission of the European
der Finanzen (Federal Finance Ministry), Alfred Dittrich, Minis-              Communities (received by fax on 23 December 2002)
terialrat in the Bundesministerium der Justiz (Federal Ministry
of Justice) and by Dr Michael Loschelder, c/o Loschelder                                           (Case C-466/02)
Rechtsanwälte, Hohenstaufenring 30-32 D-50674 Cologne.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1) of                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      14 October 2002 amending the annex to Commission                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in relation to the ‘Feta’                Communities on 30 December 2002 (received by fax on
      designation;                                                        23 December 2002) by the Kingdom of Denmark, represented
                                                                          by J. Molde and J.B. Liisberg, acting as Agents, with an address
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                              for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1) of
                                                                                14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation
—     Infringement of the rules of procedure of the Regulatory                  (EC) No 1107/96 (2) with regard to the name ‘Feta’.
      Committee and infringement of Regulation (EEC) No 1:
      the documents for the meeting on 20 November 2001 of
      the Regulatory Committee established under Article 15               Pleas in law and main arguments
      of Council Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of
      geographical indications and designations of origin for
      agricultural products and foodstuffs did not reach the
      Federal German Government 14 calendar days before-                  (Main)
      hand nor were they in German.
                                                                          The Commission adopted Regulation No 1829/2002 in con-
—     Infringement of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation                  travention of Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of
      No 2081/92: The Commission erroneously examines in                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 ( 3) (the basic regulation):
      the recitals in the preamble to the contested regulation
      whether ‘Feta’ has become a generic designation. Since              Denmark bases its arguments in this connection on the
      ‘Feta’ is first of all a non-geographical concept, the              following principles of interpretation:
      Commission ought first to have proved that it has
      acquired a geographical meaning and indeed one that                 —     The prohibition of registration of generic designations
      does not refer to the whole of a Member State. The area                   specifically reflects a number of fundamental principles
      indicated by the Greek Government in its application is                   of Community law.
      quite plainly an artificial construct; unsupported by either
      tradition or commercial conceptions. Nor does Feta owe              —     This prohibition cannot be construed restrictively and
      its quality or characteristics predominantly or exclusively               compliance with the prohibition must be subject to full
      to geographical conditions; the Commission’s statements                   review by the Court.
      in Recital 36 are supported neither by the Greek Govern-
      ment’s application nor by the findings of the Scientific            —     If a designation has become on one occasion/been from
      Committee. Finally, the areas of production and manufac-                  the outset a generic designation, then it is for all time —
      ture do not coincide, as is borne out both by the Greek                   and irreversibly — a generic designation.