title: Case C-435/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 October 2006 — C

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 October 2006 — C
   (Case C-435/06)
   (2006/C 326/69)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Does Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, (the Brussels 11a Regulation) (1) apply, in a case such as the present, to the enforcement of a public law decision in connection with child welfare, relating to the immediate taking into custody of a child and his or her placement in a foster family outside the home, taken as a single decision, in its entirety;

                           (b)

                           or solely to that part of the decision relating to placement outside the home in a foster family, having regard to the provision in Article 1(2)(d) of the regulation;

                           (c)

                           and, in the latter case, is the Brussels IIa Regulation applicable to a decision on placement contained in one on taking into custody, even if the decision on custody itself, on which the placement decision is dependent, is subject to legislation, based on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and administrative decisions, that has been harmonised in cooperation between the Member States concerned?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative, is it possible, given that the Regulation takes no account of the legislation harmonised by the Nordic Council on the recognition and enforcement of public law decisions on custody, as described above, but solely of a corresponding private law convention, nevertheless to apply this harmonised legislation based on the direct recognition and enforcement of administrative decisions as a form of cooperation between administrative authorities to the taking into custody of a child?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative and that to Question 2 is in the negative, does the Brussels IIa Regulation apply temporally to a case, taking account of Articles 72 and 64(2) of the regulation and the abovementioned harmonised Nordic legislation on public law decisions on custody, if in Sweden the administrative authorities took their decision both on immediate taking into custody and on placement with a family on 23.2.2005 and submitted their decision on immediate custody to the administrative court for confirmation on 25.2.2005, and that court accordingly confirmed the decision on 3.3.2005?

      (1)  OJ L 338, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96: Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions (SGA) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Examination of complaints — Action for a declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for compensation)

text:
19.2.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/27
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 13 December 1999                                                       of 1 December 1999
in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96: Service                   in Joined Cases T-125/96 and T-152/96: Boehringer Ingel-
pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA) v Commission                      heim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn v
              of the European Communities (1)                             Council of the European Union and C.H. Boehringer Sohn
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Examin-
ation of complaints — Action for a declaration of failure to              (Directive prohibiting the use of beta-agonists in stockfarm-
          act, for annulment and for compensation)                        ing — Regulation limiting the validity of maximum residue
                                                                          limits of veterinary medicinal products to certain therapeutic
                                                                          purposes — Action for annulment — Admissibility —
                         (2000/C 47/45)                                                    Principle of proportionality)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/46)
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96: Service                                     (Language of the case: English)
pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA), established at Istres
(France), represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     In Joined Cases T-125/96: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon, v                  GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn, established in Ingelheim am
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially,                Rhein, Germany, represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Denis
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier, and subsequently Mr                    Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — applications for annulment of the              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Commission’s decision of 5 June 1996 rejecting a complaint by             Mathias Hardt, supported by Fédération Européenne de la
the applicant based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now                   Santé Animale (Fedesa), an association incorporated under
Article 81 EC), for annulment of an alleged implicit decision             Belgian law, established in Brussels, represented by Alexandre
of the Commission refusing to adopt provisional measures                  Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
pursuant to that complaint, and for compensation for loss and             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
damage — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                     Mathias Hardt, and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and J. Pirrung and                 and Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll and David Lloyd
M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,            Jones) v Council of the European Union (Agents: Moyra
has given a judgment on 13 December 1999, in which it:                    Sims-Robertson and Ignacio Dı́ez Parra), supported by Stich-
                                                                          ting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV), a foundation
                                                                          incorporated under Netherlands law, established in The Hague,
1. Dismisses the actions.                                                 represented by Gerard van der Wal, advocate before the Hoge
                                                                          Raad der Nederlanden, and Laura Paret, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs relating to Cases T-189/95       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue and Commission of the European
     and T-123/96.                                                        Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) — application for the
                                                                          partial annulment of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April
                                                                          1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-39/96.            of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action
                                                                          and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC,
                                                                          88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3) together
                                                                          with a claim for compensation, and T-152/96: Boehringer
(1) OJ C 333 of 9.12.1995, OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996 and OJ C 318 of          Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn, sup-
    26.10.1996.                                                           ported by Fedesa v Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          supported by SKV and Council of the European Union
                                                                          — Application for the partial annulment of Commission
                                                                          Regulation (EC) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 amending Annex
                                                                          III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a
                                                                          Community procedure for the establishment of maximum


title: Case C-174/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Rental right and lending right in respect of copyright works — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 1(1) — Lending of copies of works — Article 2(1) — Lending of objects — Lending of a digital copy of a book — Public libraries)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht
   (Case C-174/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Rental right and lending right in respect of copyright works - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 1(1) - Lending of copies of works - Article 2(1) - Lending of objects - Lending of a digital copy of a book - Public libraries))
   (2017/C 014/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken

      Defendant: Stichting Leenrecht

      Intervening parties: Vereniging Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, Stichting LIRA, Stichting Pictoright

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1), Article 2(1)(b) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘lending’, within the meaning of those provisions, covers the lending of a digital copy of a book, where that lending is carried out by placing that copy on the server of a public library and allowing a user to reproduce that copy by downloading it onto his own computer, bearing in mind that only one copy may be downloaded during the lending period and that, after that period has expired, the downloaded copy can no longer be used by that user.

               2.

               EU law, and in particular Article 6 of Directive 2006/115, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from making the application of Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115 subject to the condition that the digital copy of a book made available by the public library must have been put into circulation by a first sale or other transfer of ownership of that copy in the European Union by the holder of the right of distribution to the public or with his consent, for the purpose of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

               3.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the public lending exception laid down therein from applying to the making available by a public library of a digital copy of a book in the case where that copy was obtained from an illegal source.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Case T-243/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Arable crops — Olive oil — Financial audit — Period of 24 months)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-243/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Arable crops - Olive oil - Financial audit - Period of 24 months)
   (2007/C 247/49)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic, (represented by G. Kanellopoulos and E. Svolopoulou, agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Visaggio, agents, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Funds (EAGGF), Guarantee section (OJ 2005 L 112, p. 14), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure by Greece in the sectors of arable crops and olive oil and in the matter of financial audit.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it imposes a specific adjustment on the Hellenic Republic of EUR 200 146,68 for the financial years of 1996 to 1998 (consumption aid for olive oil);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay 70 % of those incurred by the Commission, which shall bear 30 % of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-107/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Grasse): criminal proceedings against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the party liable at civil law (Food supplements — Directive 89/398/EEC — Transposition — Conditions — Retention of previous national legislation — Additive — L-Carnitine)

text:
C 233/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             12.8.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 16 May 2000                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-87/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                of 18 May 2000
the Tribunal Administratif, Luxembourg): Patrick
Zurstrassen v Administration des Contributions Direc-
                                                                           in Case C-107/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                tes (1)                                    from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Grasse): criminal
(Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Artic-                 proceedings against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the
le 39 EC) — Equal treatment — Income tax — Separate                                             party liable at civil law (1)
residence of spouses — Joint assessment to tax for married
                                                                           (Food supplements — Directive 89/398/EEC — Transposi-
                               couples)                                    tion — Conditions — Retention of previous national legisla-
                                                                                tion — Additive — L-Carnitine)
                           (2000/C 233/07)                                                            (2000/C 233/08)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-87/99, reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal Admi-                                       in the European Court Reports)
nistratif (Administrative Court), Luxembourg, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between:
Patrick Zurstrassen and Administration des Contributions                   In Case C-107/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Directes — on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 1 of                     de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Grasse, France, for a
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                   preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                         that court against Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA, the party
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) —                liable at civil law, and as third parties the Union Fédérale des
the Court, composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President                Consommateurs ‘Que choisir’ and the Organisation Générale
of the Third and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President,                 des Consommateurs (Orgeco) Union Départementale 06 —
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of                   on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/398/EEC of
Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, H. Ragne-                 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
malm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and F. Macken,                  States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louter-               uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                           acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch
                                                                           (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advoca-
given a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it ruled:                        te General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2)        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which
EC) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the                 it has ruled:
Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community preclude the application of national rules
under which, as regards income tax, the joint assessment to tax of         1.    Article 1(2) of Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the
spouses who are not separated either de facto or by virtue of a judicial         approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
decision is conditional on their both being resident on national                 foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses must be
territory and that tax advantage is denied to a worker who is resident           interpreted as meaning that food supplements such as those at
in that State, where he/she receives almost the entire income of the             issue in the main proceedings, which contain L-carnitine in
                                                                                high doses and which are marketed on the basis that they are
household, and whose spouse is resident in another Member State.                 suitable for a particular nutritional purpose, fall within the
                                                                                scope of the Directive unless the national court establishes that
                                                                                they are not suitable for the nutritional purposes that the
                                                                                manufacturer claims they are or that they do not fulfil the
                                                                                particular nutritional requirements of one of the categories of
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                        persons referred to in Article 1(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 233/5
2.    As Community law presently stands, Directive 89/398/EEC               munities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — Application for the partial
      and the directives adopted pursuant to it do not prevent Member       annulment of Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April
      States from maintaining in force after the transposition of           1997 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
      Directive 89/398/EEC prior national legislative provisions            Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 on the
      such as those at issue in the main proceedings which apply to         Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      additives authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs intended        Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in so far as
      for particular nutritional uses, even if those provisions are         it disallows, in respect of the applicant, Community financing
      based on a classification other than that used in Directive           for the sum of BEF 413 309 611 by way of expenditure
      89/398/EEC.                                                           incurred for the advance payment of export refunds — the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of R. Schintgen, President of
3.    In the absence of any provision in Directive 89/398/EEC itself,       the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
      or in the directives adopted pursuant to Article 4 of the             Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm, and
      Directive, as to the composition of foodstuffs intended for           V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,
      particular nutritional uses or the use of additives or substances     H. von Holstein, Deputy Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      for specific nutritional purposes in the manufacture of that type     given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:
      of product, no relevant Community rules exist, as Community
      law presently stands, on which individuals may rely in order to       1.    dismisses the application;
      challenge national rules on additives and substances for
      nutritional purposes authorised in the manufacture of foodstuffs      2.    orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      of the kind at issue in the main proceedings.
4.    Member States are subject, in their monitoring of the composi-        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
      tion of foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses and,
      in particular, of additives and substances for nutritional
      purposes used in their manufacture, to the requirements flowing
      from general principles recognised by Community law, and,
      in particular, the principle of the protection of legitimate
      expectations. However, in the main proceedings the relevant
      Community rules could not give rise to a legitimate expectation
      on the part of Arkopharma on which it could reasonably rely.
      It is for the national court to decide whether the rules on the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      free movement of goods within the Community have any
      application to an activity such as that at issue in the main                                    (Sixth Chamber)
      proceedings.
                                                                                of 18 May 2000
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                                                                            in Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      92/49/EEC — Direct insurance other than life assurance)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (2000/C 233/10)
                            of 18 May 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Cereals, beef                                           in the European Court Reports)
                                and veal)
                                                                            In Case C-206/98: Commission of the European Communities
                            (2000/C 233/09)                                 (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                            (Agents: J. Devadder and A. Snoecx, assisted by D. Waelbroeck)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         — application for a declaration that, by adopting and maintai-
                                                                            ning in force Article 2 of the Law of 9 July 1975 on the control
                                                                            of insurance undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      12 August 1994 (Moniteur Belge of 16 September 1994, p.
                     in the European Court Reports)                         23525), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
In Case C-242/97: Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder,                   1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-
assisted by H. Gilliams) v Commission of the European Com-                  tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life


title: Case F-18/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Claim — Explicit rejection notified after the implicit rejection — Purely confirmatory measure — Complaint made out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-18/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Claim - Explicit rejection notified after the implicit rejection - Purely confirmatory measure - Complaint made out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 6/91)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of 25 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's claim for recognition that he has a serious illness for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and the Sickness Insurance Scheme common to the institutions of the European Communities
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 18.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-484/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 97/43/Euratom — Health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure — Incomplete implementation)

text:
C 158/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,              of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, the French Republic has
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May                         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
      the health of workers and the general public against the dangers        2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      arising from ionising radiation, the French Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                              hof by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the
                                                                              case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
                                                                                Finanzamt Gersheim
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Case C-152/03)
                            (Fourth Chamber)                                                               (2003/C 158/13)
                             of 15 May 2003
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in Case C-484/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                        ties v French Republic ( 1)                           (Federal Tax Court) of 13 November 2002, received at the
                                                                              Court Registry on 2 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                  the case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
97/43/Euratom — Health protection of individuals against                      Finanzamt Gersheim on the following questions:
the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical
                                                                              1.    Is it contrary to Article 43 and Article 56 of the
            exposure — Incomplete implementation)
                                                                                Treaty establishing the European Community if, when
                                                                                determining his taxable income, a natural person who
                             (2003/C 158/12)                                        has full tax liability in Germany and who receives
                                                                                employment income there is not allowed to deduct in
                       (Language of the case: French)                               Germany losses incurred in another Member State from
                                                                                leasing and letting property?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        2.    If that question is answered in the negative: is it contrary
                      in the European Court Reports)                                to Article 43 and Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the
                                                                                European Community if such losses cannot be taken into
                                                                                account for the purposes of the negative tax progression
                                                                                clause (negativer Progressionsvorbehalt)?
In Case C-484/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/43/
Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals                   Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical              the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (OJ 1997
L 180, p. 22), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),                                              (Case C-167/03)
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;                                                      (2003/C 158/14)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June                  represented by M. Van Beek and M. Konstandinidi, of its Legal
      1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers            Service.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 July 1998 in Case T-28/97: Agnès Hubert v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Action for annulment - Transfer/reposting - Interests of the service - Absence of statement of reasons - Action for compensation)

text:
C 299/34             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
                       of 17 July 1998                             Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                   gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
in Case T-28/97: AgneÁs Hubert v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                         1. dismisses the action;
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Transfer/reposting             2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð Interests of the service Ð Absence of statement of
            reasons Ð Action for compensation)                     (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                        (98/C 299/57)
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-28/97: AgneÁs Hubert, an official of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                                       of 16 July 1998
Brusels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge
                                                                   in Case T-81/97: Region of Tuscany v. Commission of the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, v. the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    (Integrated Mediterranean programmes Ð Community
Gianluigi Valsesia, Christine Berardis-Kayser and Denis            financial assistance Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 Ð
Waelbroeck) Ð application, first, for annulment of the                            Regulation (EEC) No 2085/93)
Commission's decision of 27 March 1996 changing the
                                                                                (98/C 299/59)
applicant's posting and, second, for compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly resulting                              (Language of the case: Italian)
therefrom Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.                 In Case T-81/97: Region of Tuscany, represented by Vito
Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal             Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paolo
17 July 1998, in which it:                                         Benocci, 50, rue de Vianden, against the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities (Agents: Paolo Ziotti and
1. dismisses the action;                                           Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of several
                                                                   acts of the Commission concerning the Community
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                   assistance allocated to project No 88.20.IT.006.0 (works
                                                                   for the supply of drinking water in Tuscany) Ð the Court
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                   16 July 1998 in which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   1. annuls the decision contained in the letter of
                       (First Chamber)                                  31 January 1997;
                       of 14 July 1998
                                                                   2. dismisses the      remainder    of  the   application  as
in Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                   inadmissible;
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                   3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(Officials Ð Refusal to authorise secondment on union
duties to the person designated by a trade union Ð                 (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                         Admissibility)
                        (98/C 299/58)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the                                      of 16 July 1998
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles                  in Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV and
BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                     Broeckman Motorships BV v. Commission of the
service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de                                   European Communities (1)
l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European                   (Commission decision declaring that the repayment of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                 import duties is not justified Ð Action for annulment Ð
Currall) Ð application for, first, the annulment of a               Article 239 of the customs code Ð Duty to state reasons)
decision of the Commission of 12 May 1996 refusing to
                                                                                (98/C 299/60)
grant to the applicant the secondment on union duties
requested by his trade union and the re-examination of all                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
secondment on trade union duties granted in the past and,
secondly, a finding that the secondment on trade union             In Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV, established
duties procedure was unlawful Ð the Court of First                 in Vianen (The Netherlands), and Broeckman Motorships
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,              BV, established in Rotterdam (The Netherlands),


title: Case F-14/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 — Marcuccio v European Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Accident — Procedure for recognition of permanent partial invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Duration of the procedure — Action for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/52

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 — Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case F-14/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Accident - Procedure for recognition of permanent partial invalidity within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Duration of the procedure - Action for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
   2011/C 252/113
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for an order that the defendant pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the duration of the procedure for recognition of partial invalidity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action of Mr Marcuccio is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission in addition to his own costs.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to repay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000 pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.05.2010, p. 54.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2002 in Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European Parliament (Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retirement pension scheme — Suspension of payment — Confirmatory act — Admissibility)

text:
C 261/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.10.2002
1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                    A. Whelan) — application for annulment of Commission
                                                                              Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a
                                                                              proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
                                                                              of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium
                                                                              gluconate) or, alternatively, for the reduction of the fine
                                                                              imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of that decision —
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                                                                              M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
                            of 9 July 2002                                    Registrar, made an order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of
                                                                              which is as follows:
in Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European
                             Parliament (1)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on this action.
(Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-                     2.    The Commission shall pay the costs.
ment pension scheme — Suspension of payment — Con-
                  firmatory act — Admissibility)
                                                                              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 68.
                           (2002/C 261/24)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana, former Member of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
European Parliament, residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy),                                            INSTANCE
represented by W Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, lawyers,
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                                           of 8 August 2002
— application for annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 26 March 2001 suspending payment of the
pension of the applicant following his election to the Regional               in Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesell-
Council for the Region of Umbria (Italy) — the Court of First                  schaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                 (Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC)
order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                       No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                    (2002/C 261/26)
2.     The applicant shall pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ 2001 C 245.
                                                                              In Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft
                                                                              mbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), VVG (International)
                                                                              Ltd, established in Europort Gibraltar (Gibraltar), Metalsivas
                                                                              Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Vienna
                                                                              (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Com-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen
                                                                              and B. Eggers,) — application for suspension of the operation
                            of 9 July 2002                                    of Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March
                                                                              2002 imposing provisional safeguard measures against
in Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG v Commission of the                        imports of certain steel products (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1) or of
                     European Communities ( 1)                                any other provisional measure likely to permit the applicants
                                                                              to import into the Community, in addition to the tariff quota
(Action for annulment — Action which has become devoid                        and free of additional duties, 95 129 tonnes of alloy hot rolled
    of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Order for costs)                     flat products covered by reference 4 of the said Regulation —
                                                                              the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
                           (2002/C 261/25)                                    on 8 August 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: German)                           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG, established in Basel
(Switzerland), represented by R. Bechtold and M. Karl, lawyers,


title: Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Giuseppe Calo against the Committee of the Regions (Case T-179/95)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 315 /21
Similarly, Article 65 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations provides        possible for potential candidates from other Community
that, in the event of a substantial change in the cost of living,    institutions to learn of the notice in question until after the
measures must be taken within two months to adjust the               time limit for the submission of applications had expired or,
weightings . Furthermore, the Community legislature has              at best, until a few hours before its expiry .
provided that the annual adjustment of remuneration must
be decided before the end of each year and must take effect          The applicant pleads :
from 1 July in that year . The legislature has thus permitted        — misuse of powers, together with breach of the principle
the Council to adjust the remuneration of officials only once            of equality of treatment and non-discrimination
in each year, if appropriate with retroactive effect . On the            between officials,
other hand , it has prescribed a particularly short time limit
for the adoption by the Council of the measures necessary in         — infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations ,
order to eliminate any variation between the purchasing                  inasmuch as, although the decision rejecting the
power of officials . According to the applicants, that degree            application of the applicant was taken on 5 December
of leeway is understandable, inasmuch as that adjustment                  1 994 , it was only communicated to him by the defendant
cannot, in accordance with Article 85 of the Staff                       institution by letter dated 10 February 1995 , which
Regulations, result in a reduction of remuneration .                     contained no statement of reasons whatever, which was
                                                                         stamped 13 February 1995 and which was not brought
Thus, by adopting the contested Regulation with retroactive              to the knowledge of the applicant until 16 February
effect, the Council has disregarded the principles of the                 1995 , and
protection of legitimate expectations, of equality of
treatment, of non-discrimination between officials and of            — infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations , in
established rights .                                                     that the appointing authority did not examine the
                                                                         comparative merits of the candidates, as it was required
                                                                         to do under that provision .
Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Santo Picciolo
            against the Committee of the Regions                     Action brought on 28 September 1995 by Giuseppe Calo
                        ( Case T-178/95 )                                          against the Committee of the Regions
                          ( 95/C 315/40 )                                                     ( Case T- 179/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 315/41 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Committee of the Regions was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           An action against the Committee of the Regions was
Communities on 28 September 1995 by Santo Picciolo ,                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
residing at Itzig ( Luxembourg), represented by Jean-Noel            Communities on 28 September 1995 by Giuseppe Calo,
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                   residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis ,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar,
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener .               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decisions rejecting the application of the
                                                                     — annul the decisions rejecting the application of the
     applicant for post Cdr/1/94 as Head ( A2 ) of the                    applicant for post Cdr/1 /94 as Head ( A2 ) of the
     Directorate for the Registry, Administration and the
                                                                          Directorate for the Registry, Administration and the
     Budget of the Committee of the Regions and appointing                Budget of the Committee of the Regions and appointing
     another person to that post,                                         another person to that post,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant, an official of the European Parliament,               The applicant, an official of the European Parliament,
 contests the manner in which the procedure for appointing a          contests the manner in which the procedure for appointing a
 Head of Administration and the Registry of the Committee             Head of Administration and the Registry of the Committee
 of the Regions has been conducted .                                  of the Regions has been conducted .
 He states that the notice of vacancy in respect of that              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 appointment was drawn up by the service headed by the                in Case T-178 /95 Santo Picciolo v. Committee of the
 successful candidate , who was, moreover, chosen in                  Regions .
 advance . Because the time limit for the submission of
 applications was deliberately foreshortened, it was not


28 . 6 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/ 11
1 . in cases of under-representation under paragraph 3 ( 1 )             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     and (2 ) of the Hessen Equal Rights Law ( HGlG )                    Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC H laying down a
     selection decisions under paragraph 10 of the HGlG,                 procedure for the provision of information in the field
     where a woman and a man applicant have equal                        of technical standards and regulations,
     qualifications, must because of the binding nature of
     the targets in the women's advancement plan under
     paragraph 5 ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) of the HGlG be in favour of         — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     the woman applicant in the individual case, at least if             proceedings .
     that is necessary for fulfilling the targets and no
     reasons of greater legal weight are opposed;
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . the binding targets of the women's advancement plan
     for posts in the academic service to be filled for fixed        In view of the fact that the description ' Italian-type rural
     terms    and   for  academic assistants     must,   under       cock' has not been authorized by the Commission on the
     paragraph 5 ( 7 ) of the HGlG, provide for at least the         basis of any other Community rule ( for instance, as a
     same proportion of women as the proportion of                   designation of origin or geographical indication ) and that
     women among graduates ( subparagraph 7, sentence 1 ),           consequently it is indubitably subject to the arrangements
     holders of higher degrees ( subparagraph 7, sentence 2 )        laid down for technical standards by Directive 83/189/
     or students ( subparagraph 7, sentence 3 ) in the faculty       EEC, the Commission submits that, by adopting the
     in question;                                                    Decree of 17 December 1990 without having notified it at
                                                                     the draft stage, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
3 . in training-based professions in which women are                 obligations under Article 8 ( 1 ) of Directive 83/189/EEC.
     under-represented, under paragraph 7 ( 1 ) of the HGlG
     women are to be taken into account to the extent of at
                                                                     In the    Commission's view, the           Italian  Government
     least one half in allocating training places, except in         adopted the decree in question with the main purpose of
     the case of training courses in which the State                 introducing a technical regulation within the meaning of
     exclusively provides training;                                  Article 1 ( 5 ) of Directive 83/189/EEC.
4. in sectors in which women are under-represented,
     under paragraph 9 ( 1 ) of the HGlG at least as many            In the light of the provisions at issue as a whole, it is
     women as men, or all the women applicants, are to be            evident that they are designed to lay down the
     called to interview if they satisfy the conditions laid         characteristics which products must display for the
     down by law or otherwise for appointment to the post            purpose of being marketed under the mark in question, or
     or the office to be conferred;                                  to describe the processes relating to their production. Any
                                                                     other provision contained therein is of a merely ancillary
                                                                     nature and function in relation to the prescription of a
5 . in making appointments to commissions, advisory                  technical standard .
     boards, boards of directors and supervisory boards
     and other collegiate bodies, under paragraph 14 of the
     HGlG at least half the members should be women ?                The Commission further submits that the breach of the
                                                                     notification procedure laid down by the Directive means
                                                                     that the technical regulation at issue cannot be relied on
                                                                     as against third parties.
                                                                     (') OJ No L 109, 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-160/97)
                         ( 97/C 199/21 )
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  Court, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by
                                                                     order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of The
25 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its                Queen against Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte:
                                                                                Terence Perkins
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                       ( Case C-168/97)
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/22 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— declare that, by adopting the Decree of the Ministry of             European Communities by an order of the Divisional
      Agriculture and Forests of 17 December 1990 without             Court, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of
      having notified it at the draft stage, the Italian              13 March 1997, which was received at the Court Registry


title: Order of the Court of 8 July 1999 in Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Single European Act - Customs agent)

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 333/11
       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                 Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue d’Eich — appeal
                          of 29 June 1999                                  against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (First Chamber) of 21 December 1998 in Case T-
in Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic v Commission of the                   122/98 Gluiber v Council and Commission (not yet published
European Communities, supported by Ireland and the                         in the European Court Reports), seeking to have that order set
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                   aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the Council
                                                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the European
(Application for interim measures — Structural funds —                     Communities — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
Financing of Community initiatives — Modification of                       P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
                       indicative allocations)                             and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
                                                                           R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 July 1999, the
                          (1999/C 333/21)                                  operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           1. The appeal is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2. Ms Gluiber is to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
In Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,
assisted by I.M. Braguglia) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: E. de March, K. Simonsson and H. Spey-
art), supported by Ireland (Agent: J. Payne, assisted by
D. McGuinness and E. Kent) and United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted by
D. Wyatt) — application for suspension of operation of the                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
decision of the Commission of 16 December 1998 approving
modifications to the indicative allocation of Community                                               of 8 July 1999
initiatives, communicated to the Italian Republic by letter from
the Secretary-General of the Commission dated 19 January                   in Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA v Council of
1999, and of all measures based thereon or linked thereto,                 the European Union and Commission of the European
alternatively for the adoption of other provisional measures —                                       Communities (1)
the President of the Court has made an order on 29 June 1999,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Single European Act
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                                              — Customs agent)
2. The costs are reserved.                                                                           (1999/C 333/23)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999, p. 7.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           In Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA, a company
                          (First Chamber)                                  incorporated under French law, established at Roubaix
                                                                           (France), represented by Pierre Ricard, Advocate with a right
                           of 5 July 1999                                  of audience before the French Conseil d’État and Cour de
                                                                           Cassation, and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris Bar,
in Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde — appeal against the judgment
                             munities (1)                                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case T-113/96 Dubois
        (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)                     et Fils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-125, seeking
                                                                           to have that judgment set aside and seeking an order requiring
                          (1999/C 333/22)                                  the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities jointly and severally to pay to
                                                                           Édouard Dubois et Fils SA, pursuant to the second paragraph
                   (Language of the case: German)                          of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of
                                                                           Article 288 EC), the sum of FRF 112 339 702 by way of
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     compensation for the damage caused to the applicant in its
                   in the European Court Reports)                          activities as a customs agent, together with an order requiring
                                                                           them to pay the costs, the other parties to the proceedings
In Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                being the Council of the European Union (Agents: Guus
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,                    Houttuin and Maria Cristina Giorgi) and the Commission of
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/12                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
the European Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and                      Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at
Roland Tricot) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch            in the case of Pavarini Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl)
and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,              v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-                following question:
nemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                       Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the
                                                                            rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                    No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                            consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
2. Orders Édouard Dubois et Fils SA to pay the costs.                      the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                            contributions of 1%?
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                        Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of                          27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA against Direzione delle                        Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
               Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                           European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
                                                                            cova S.A. and 31 others and the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                          (Case C-279/99)
                                                                                (Case C-300/99 P)
                          (1999/C 333/24)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                   An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at               Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova S.A. and
the Court Registry on 26 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling                31 others and the Council of the European Union was brought
in the case of Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA v Direzione delle               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the following question:               10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented
                                                                            by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva
Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with                 Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the              Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas
rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                              Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by              The appellants claim that the Court should:
the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
contributions of 1%?                                                        (1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-194/95 on account of all or some
                                                                                of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                               consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,
                                                                                either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case
                                                                                or by referring the matter back to the Court of First
                                                                                Instance;
                                                                            (2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court
                                                                                of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                             in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Pavarini                      upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first
Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl) against Direzione                           instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
           delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
                          (Case C-296/99)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — Infringement of Community law, consisting of the misap-
                          (1999/C 333/25)                                        plication and misinterpretation of Article 230 (formerly
                                                                                Article 173) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as the order treats
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the contested regulation as a measure of general application
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                        and ignores the fact that it is applicable only to a wholly
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First                   individualised and identified group of economic operators;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2000 in Case C-437/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien and Wein & Co. HandelsgesmbH, formerly Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, v Oberösterreichische Landesregierung (Indirect taxation — Municipal beverage duty — Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 92/12/EEC)

text:
27.5.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 149/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
                                                                                1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                        relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
                                                                                tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council
                         of 9 March 2000                                         Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing
                                                                                the common system of value added tax and amending Directive
in Case C-437/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, does
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Evangelischer Krankenhaus-                          not preclude the maintenance of a tax such as the duty on
verein Wien v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien and                                beverages and ice cream at issue in the main proceedings, which
Wein & Co. HandelsgesmbH, formerly Ikera Waren-                                  is levied on the supply for consideration of ice cream (including
handelsgesellschaft mbH, v Oberösterreichische Landes-                           fruits processed therein or added thereto) and of beverages, in
                            regierung (1)                                        each case including the containers and accessories sold with the
                                                                                products.
(Indirect taxation — Municipal beverage duty — Sixth VAT
               Directive — Directive 92/12/EEC)
                          (2000/C 149/01)                                    2. Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February
                                                                                1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise
                                                                                duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
                   (Language of the case: German)                                products does not preclude the maintenance of a tax charged on
                                                                                non-alcoholic beverages and ice cream, such as that at issue in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           the main proceedings. Article 3(2) of that directive does preclude
                   in the European Court Reports)                                the maintenance of a tax charged on alcoholic beverages, such as
                                                                                that at issue in the main proceedings.
In Case C-437/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Evangelischer Krankenhaus-                 3. The provisions of Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 cannot be
                                                                                relied on in support of claims relating to a tax such as the duty
verein Wien and Abgabenberufungskommission Wien and
between Wein & Co. HandelsgesmbH, formerly Ikera Waren-                          on alcoholic beverages paid or chargeable prior to the date of the
handelsgesellschaft mbH, and Oberösterreichische Landesregi-                     present judgment, except by claimants who have, before that date,
                                                                                initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent administrative
erung on the interpretation of Article 33 of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                         claim.
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), of Article 3 of Council Directive
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,
p. 1), and of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 2000, in
which it has ruled:


               20.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/11

         Action brought on 6 April 2013 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-4/13)
   2013/C 174/07
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 6 April 2013 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively DB Schenker), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul ESA’s decision of 7 February 2013 in Case No 73038 (DB Schenker — access to documents) in so far as it denies access to the inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak);

               2.

               Order ESA (and any intervener) to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of the DB Schenker group, an international freight forwarding and logistic group. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB.

               —

               The applicants submitted a request for access to the documents in Case No 34250 on 3 August 2010 under the rules on public access to documents established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008 (RAD). In a decision dated 16 August 2011, ESA refused access to certain documents in the file (‘inspection documents’). The decision was annulled by a judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-14/11, 21 December 2012, insofar as it denied full or partial access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak.

               —

               New rules on public access to documents were enacted by way of ESA Decision No 300/12/COL on 5 September 2012. On 7 February 2013 ESA adopted a decision denying access to a number of the inspection documents under the new rules on public access to documents. The applicants seek to annul that decision under Article 36 SCA.

         The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has inter alia:

               —

               taken an unlawful starting point by considering that RAD 2012 is not part of EEA law and not subject to the principle of homogenous interpretation, and given the new rules unlawful retroactive effect;

               —

               infringed Article 4(4) RAD 2012 and the duty to state reasons, cf. Article 16 SCA; and

               —

               infringed the right to partial access in Article 4(9) RAD 2012 and the duty to state reasons, cf. Article 16 SCA.


title: Case T-217/10: Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Rautaruukki Oyj v OHIM — Manuel Vigil Pérez (MONTERREY)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/26

         Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Rautaruukki Oyj v OHIM — Manuel Vigil Pérez (MONTERREY)
   (Case T-217/10)
   2010/C 195/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rautaruukki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Vigil Pérez (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 February 2010 in case R 1001/2009-2;

               —

               Dismiss the decision of the Opposition Division No B 1173707 in its entirety;

               —

               Allow registration of the applicant's mark ‘MONTERREY’ for all the goods in classes 6 and 19 according to applicant's Community trademark application No 5276936;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs incurred in these proceedings as well as those incurred before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MONTERREY’, for goods and services in classes 6, 19 and 37

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 1695663 of the figurative mark ‘MONTERREY’, for services in class 37; Spanish trade mark registration No 1695662 of the figurative mark ‘MONTERREY’, for services in class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

      Pleas in law:

               The applicant advances three pleas in law in support of its application.

               On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the similarity of the goods and services.

               By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Rule 99 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly assumed that the translation of an earlier right corresponded to the relevant original.

               By its third plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legality.


title: Case C-260/01: Action brought on 4 July 2001 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
1.9.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/13
Action brought on 4 July 2001 by the European Parlia-                    —     Failure by the Council to fulfil its duty of sincere
     ment against the Council of the European Union                            cooperation, as guaranteed by Article 10 EC: the Council
                                                                               adopted an implementing act before the relevant basic
                                                                               act had been adopted by the competent institutions.
                          (Case C-260/01)                                      When the Council adopted its decision, that is to say, on
                                                                               19 March 2001, the legislative procedure leading to the
                          (2001/C 245/23)                                      adoption of the act provided for in Article 255(2) EC was
                                                                               already at a very advanced stage. The Council makes no
                                                                               mention in the contested decision of any urgent reasons
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        justifying its approach. Nor did it ever indicate to the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   Parliament any urgency in connection with the adoption
ties on 4 July 2001 by the European Parliament, represented                    of its security regulation.
by R. Passos and A. Caiola, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                               —     Breach of the principle of institutional balance.
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
—     annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Council Decision
      2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s
      security regulations.                                              Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against
                                                                         the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
—     Infringement of the EC Treaty, and in particiular
      Article 255 thereof: it is clear on reading Articles 255 EC                                (Case C-263/01 P)
      and 207 EC that the act of the Council mentioned in
      Article 207 must be consistent with the general principles                                  (2001/C 245/24)
      and limits laid down in the basic act referred to in
      Article 255(2) EC. It is of fundamental importance that
      the heirarchical order of these provisions is complied             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by
      with in full by the Parliament, the Council and the                the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      Commission if acts adopted jointly pursuant to                     European Comunities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
      Article 255(2) EC are to be effective. The act pursuant to         between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the
      the codecision procedure must be adopted first. Only               European Communities was brought before the Court of
      then will the three institutions be in a position to lay           Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2001 by Carla
      down their own specific provisions governing the public’s          Giulietti, represented by S. Diana, with an address for service
      right of access to their documents. The basic act in               in Brussels.
      question, namely Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the
      European Parliament and the Council regarding public
      access to European Parliament, Council and Commission              The appellant claims that the Court should:
      documents, was adopted on 30 May 2001. Whilst the
      European Parliament and the Commission followed the                —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      order prescribed by Article 255 EC, the Council, in                      2 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99;
      infringement thereof, did not, and on 19 March 2001
      adopted Decision 2001/264.                                         —     order the European Commission to pay the cost.
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements: it is clear
      from the express purpose and content of Decision                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      2001/264/EC that it deals with matters going beyond the
      internal operations of the Council. It has in fact created         —     Infringement of the rights of the defence:
      legal obligations on the part of the Member States and
      Community satellite organisations. In order to do that,
      the Council ought not to have availed itself of the                      The appellant was only informed at the end of the written
      provisions of Article 207(3) EC and Article 24 of Council                procedure before the Court of First Instance as to how
      Decision 2000/396/EC of 5 June 2000, but should                          the group of 250 candidates retained for the tests was
      instead have had recourse to a different legal basis                     broken down as between the two spheres of activity
      allowing, in any event, for the initiative of the Com-                   covered by the competition. She was not informed of
      mission and the involvement of the European Parliament                   how many candidates had initially chosen each sphere of
      in the legislative procedure, such as Article 255 EC and/or              activity. The appellant was thus unable to prove inequality
      Article 308 EC. By its actions, the Council has thwarted a               of treatment between candidates on the part of the
      prerogative power of the European Parliament.                            selection board.