title: Case T-305/08: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Italy v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/08 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/11

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-305/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/08 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 109/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-305/12: Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-305/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/47
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-234/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   (Case C-234/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tereos

      Defendant: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation No 1260/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide, for all categories of sugar exported, the total amount of the actual expenditure by the total amount of the quantities exported, regardless of whether refunds have actually been paid for those quantities or not?

               2.

               Is Regulation No 1193/2009 (2) invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 in so far as it fixes a production levy for sugar calculated on the basis of an average loss the calculation of which involves, as regards sugar exported in processed products, a multiplication between the unit amount of the export refund relating to those products and the total quantities exported, including the quantities exported without benefiting from a refund, and not a division of the expenditure actually incurred by the total amount of the quantities exported, with or without a refund?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1).


title: Case F-96/06: Action brought on 10 August 2006 — G v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/23

         Action brought on 10 August 2006 — G v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-96/06)
   (2006/C 237/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: G (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by: B. Camber and L. Cambier, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the defendant is liable for the wrongful acts that it has committed to the applicant's detriment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay provisional damages of EUR 1 581 801 to the applicant and his family, which corresponds to half of the damage caused by all of the wrongful acts committed by the Commission, its agents, employees and/or other dependent bodies, the other half having to be assessed with the assistance of an expert;

               —

               order the defendant to pay 8 % interest on all of the abovementioned sums from 23 November 1999 onwards, when the first report of the internal enquiry of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was published, in which the first signs of bias against the applicant appeared, or, in the alternative, from 29 June 2005 onwards, when the applicant lodged a request for compensation under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               appoint an expert;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant puts forward eight pleas in law.
   First, he criticises the Commission for placing him at the heart of the ‘Berthelot’ affair and for considering him as the leading instigator of that affair, whereas in fact all of these allegations were false, and there was not the slightest evidence to support any such allegations against the applicant. In doing so, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to have regard for the interests of officials and its duty of good administration, and frustrated the applicant's legitimate expectations.
   Second, the applicant criticises the Commission for having gravely compromised his right to a fair hearing through all the failures and deficiencies in the administrative enquiries stemming from the ‘Berthelot’ affair, which were not carried out impartially.
   Third, the applicant claims breach of the Commission's duty of confidentiality in allowing journalists, during the course of the year 2000, to enter OLAF's premises and thereby gain knowledge of certain confidential documents concerning the applicant, details of which were then broadcast in a television programme.
   Fourth, the Commission criticises the Commission's decision to lift his immunity from jurisdiction.
   Fifth, the applicant criticises the Commission for transferring him to the post of Chief Adviser in the Directorate-General Research and Technological Development, not in the interests of the Commission's service nor by applying the institution's mobility policy, but as a veiled disciplinary sanction.
   Sixth, regarding the procedure for recognition of the occupational cause of the applicant's illness (Article 73 of the Staff Regulations), the applicant contests the Commission's decisions to exclude, from the outset, the possibility that his illness might be work-related, and to transfer his file to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC), so that the latter could carry out administrative enquiries seeking to determine the cause of his illness.
   Seventh, the applicant relies on the independence of the procedures governed by Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations and contests the Commission Invalidity Committee's decision indefinitely to stay the proceedings under Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations, until a decision has been taken on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.
   Eighth, the applicant finds fault with the fact that disciplinary proceedings against him were initiated and continued, while the evidence that formed the basis of those proceedings had been found to be baseless by the Belgian courts, in criminal proceedings brought against the applicant.
   The applicant concludes that the Commission's abovementioned wrongful acts are the cause of the nervous depression which forced him prematurely to end his career as an official. This state of affairs caused material damage and pain and suffering to him and his family.


title: Case C-302/10: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (Copyright — Information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(1) and (5) — Literary and artistic works — Reproduction of short extracts of literary works — Newspaper articles — Temporary and transient reproductions — Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction and storage of part of that reproduction — Acts of temporary reproduction which form an integral and essential part of such a technological process — Purpose of those acts being the lawful use of a work or protected subject-matter — Independent economic significance of those acts)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/8

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening
   (Case C-302/10) (1)

   (Copyright - Information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(1) and (5) - Literary and artistic works - Reproduction of short extracts of literary works - Newspaper articles - Temporary and transient reproductions - Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction and storage of part of that reproduction - Acts of temporary reproduction which form an integral and essential part of such a technological process - Purpose of those acts being the lawful use of a work or protected subject-matter - Independent economic significance of those acts)
   2012/C 73/12
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Infopaq International A/S

      Defendant: Danske Dagblades Forening

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Company which has as its main activity the compilation of summaries of newspaper articles by means of scanning — Storage of an extract of an article consisting of a search word with the five words which precede it and the five words which follow it — Temporary acts of reproduction which constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a ‘data capture’ process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings,
               fulfil the condition that those acts must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, notwithstanding the fact that they initiate and terminate that process and involve human intervention;
               fulfil the condition that those acts of reproduction must pursue a sole purpose, namely to enable the lawful use of a protected work or a protected subject-matter;
               fulfil the condition that those acts must not have an independent economic significance provided, first, that the implementation of those acts does not enable the generation of an additional profit going beyond that derived from the lawful use of the protected work and, secondly, that the acts of temporary reproduction do not lead to a modification of that work.

               2.

               Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that, if they fulfil all the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the acts of temporary reproduction carried out during a ‘data capture’ process, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, must be regarded as fulfilling the condition that the acts of reproduction may not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-143/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Spain — Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 — Failings in the control system — Assessment of control samples — Burden of proof — Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 — On-the-spot checks — Key controls — Proportionality)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-143/15) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Spain - Decoupled direct aid in the claim years 2008 and 2009 - Failings in the control system - Assessment of control samples - Burden of proof - Aid for rural development in the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León in the claim years 2009 and 2010 - On-the-spot checks - Key controls - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 293/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns the financial correction imposed on the Kingdom of Spain following inquiry AA/2009/007/ES for the claim year 2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/45

         Removal from the Register of Case T-14/05 (1)

   (2005/C 182/85)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 25 May 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-14/05, Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 19.3.2005.


title: Case C-335/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 11 July 2014  — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v Belgian State

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 11 July 2014 — Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL v Belgian State
   (Case C-335/14)
   2014/C 339/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Les Jardins de Jouvence SCRL

      Respondent: Belgian State

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a serviced residence, within the meaning of the Decree of the Council of the Walloon Region of 5 June 1997 relating to retirement homes, serviced residences and day-care centres for persons of 60 or over, [which makes available] for profit individual dwellings designed for one or two persons, comprising a fitted kitchen, a sitting room, a bedroom and a fitted bathroom, thereby enabling residents to lead an independent life, together with a range of optional services supplied against payment, with the aim of making a profit, those services not being available exclusively for the occupants of the serviced residences (… a bar restaurant, … hairdressing and beauty salon, … a physiotherapy room, … occupational therapy activities, … a laundry, … a pharmacy and a blood collection point, a doctor’s surgery), a body that is in essence devoted to social wellbeing which carries out supplies ‘of services and of goods closely linked to welfare and social security work’ for the purposes of Article 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (now Article 132(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax) (2)?

               2.

               Is the answer to Question 1 different if the serviced residence in question receives, for the supply of the services in question, subsidies or any other form of advantage or funding from public authorities?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-624/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Figurative mark Darjeeling — Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling)
   (Case T-624/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1504/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-194/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Spain) — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Annual leave scheduled by the undertaking coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take annual leave at another time — Allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/11

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Spain) — Concepción Maestre García v Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA
   (Case C-194/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Annual leave scheduled by the undertaking coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time - Allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken)
   2013/C 108/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Concepción Maestre García

      Defendant: Centros Comerciales Carrefour SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Worker on sick leave during the annual leave period fixed by the company — Entitlement of the worker to take leave at another time.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation according to which a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled unilaterally in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, following the end of his sick leave, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period, for reasons connected with production or organisation of the undertaking.

               2.

               Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national legislation that permits, while the contract of employment is in force, the payment of an allowance in lieu of the period of annual leave which the worker was not able to take as a result of work incapacity.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-76/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 11 February 2016 — INGSTEEL spol. s r. o., Metrostav a. s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 11 February 2016 — INGSTEEL spol. s r. o., Metrostav a. s. v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie
   (Case C-76/16)
   (2016/C 270/26)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: INGSTEEL spol. s r. o., Metrostav a. s.

      Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

      Intervener: Slovenský futbalový zväz

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the conduct of a national authority, which finds that a tenderer for a contract with an estimated value of EUR 3 million does not satisfy the selection criterion relating to economic and financial standing, even though a sworn statement submitted by the tenderer and a declaration provided by its bank, certify that it will be able to draw on funds under a secured loan which can be used for any purpose up to a maximum amount exceeding the value of the contract, be considered compatible with the objective of Article 47, in particular Article 47(1)(a) and (4), of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts?

               2.

               Where, in a binding undertaking to grant credit, a bank operating on the banking-services market of a Member State, makes the release of funds conditional upon fulfilment of conditions for granting credit which are not specifically indicated in the loan agreement at the time of the tendering procedure, does such conduct constitute, for the purpose of Article 47(5) of Directive 2004/18, a valid reason why the tenderer cannot produce the references requested by the contracting authority, so that is it possible for the tenderer to prove its economic and financial standing by means of a sworn statement to the effect that its credit arrangement with the bank is sufficient for the purpose in question?

               3.

               In an action for review of the decision of a national authority responsible for public tendering procedures to exclude a tenderer, may the fact that the successful tenderer has almost completed performance of the various contracts be regarded as an objective impediment precluding the national court from giving effect to the provisions of Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Article 2(3), (6), (7) and (8) of Directive 89/665/EEC (2) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 44, 22.2.2003

text:
8.3.2003         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         C 55/43
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 55/103)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
         OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
         OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
         OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
         OJ C 305, 7.12.2002
         OJ C 289, 23.11.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-145/01: Action brought on 29 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 173/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.6.2001
      of the ECHR), to be interpreted as precluding national                  (b) in the case of undertakings declared in a state of ‘crisi
      rules which require a public broadcasting corporation, as                     aziendale’ (economic crisis), they do not provide, for
      a legal entity, to communicate, and a State body to collect                   the transfer of the workforce and of the debts arising
      and pass on, data on income for the purpose of publishing                     from an employment contract or relationship from
      the names and income of employees of a broadcasting                           the transferor to the transferee,
      corporation governed by public law?
                                                                              the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Council Directive 77/187/EEC (1) of 14 February
2.    If the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules               1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
      that the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:            States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in
      Are the provisions precluding national rules of the kind                the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts
      described above directly applicable, in the sense that a                of businesses, and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof;
      corporation obliged to disclose data may rely on them to
      prevent the application of conflicting national rules,
      and may not therefore raise, as against the employees             —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      concerned by the disclosure, the fact that it is bound to
      comply with national rules?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.                                               Article 47(5) and (6) of Law No 428 of 1990 provides for the
                                                                        non-application of the rules laid down by Directive 77/187, in
                                                                        the following circumstances:
                                                                        (a)   the undertaking concerned falls into one of the following
                                                                              categories:
                                                                              —     undertaking or production unit in respect of which
                                                                                the Comitato Interministeriale per la Politica Indus-
                                                                                triale (Inter-ministerial committee on industrial pol-
                                                                                icy — CIPI) has declared a state of economic crisis
                                                                                in terms of Law No 675 of 1977;
Action brought on 29 March 2001 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                       —     undertaking in bankruptcy;
                                                                              —     undertaking which has been the subject of a deed of
                          (Case C-145/01)                                           arrangement involving the transfer of goods;
                                                                              —     undertaking whose liquidation has been made
                          (2001/C 173/44)                                           public;
                                                                              —     undertaking under extraordinary liquidation;
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     (b) an agreement has been concluded between workers’
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                                representatives and the employers, with regard to changes
                                                                              to working conditions or maintaining partial employ-
                                                                              ment.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The Commission takes the view that Italy lawfully disapplied
                                                                        Directive 77/187 in respect of undertakings declared bankrupt
—     Declare that, by failing maintaining in force the provisions      and those in liquidation. On the other hand, the derogation
      in Article 47(5) and (6) of Law No 428 of 29 December             for deeds of arrangement, extraordinary liquidation and the
      1990, in so far as they:                                          declaration of a state of economic crisis appear to be clearly
                                                                        contrary to Community law and the case-law of the Court of
                                                                        Justice.
      (a)   provided for the non-application of the automatic
            transfer of all employment contracts or relationships
            from the transferor to the transferee, in the case of       Directive 77/187 makes no provision for exemption from the
            undertakings which have been the subject of a deed          full effect of its provisions in respect of undertakings which
            of arrangement involving the transfer of goods or in        have been the subject of a deed of arrangement involving the
            cases of undertakings under extraordinary liqui-            transfer of goods or which are subject to extraordinary
            dation, where the undertakings themselves continue          administration, despite the Italian authorities views to the
            to carry on business after transfer;                        contrary.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 173/27
So far as concerns those undertakings in respect of which the           preclude the application of the provision, created by the
CIPI has made a finding of economic crisis within the meaning           amendment to the Wiener Abgabenordnung (Vienna Tax
of Law No 675/77, it must be observed that Article 4a(3) of             Code, WAO) of 2 March 2000, LGBI. No 9/2000, and
Directive 77/187 provides, so far as undertakings in grave              applicable also to tax liabilities which arose before promulgation of
economic crisis are concerned, that Member States may apply             that amendment, in Paragraph 185(3) of the WAO, under which
paragraph 2(b) to any transfers where the transferor is in a            there is no claim to repayment where the economic burden of
situation of serious economic crisis, as defined by national law,       the duty was borne by a person other than the taxable person?
provided that the situation is declared by a competent public
authority and open to judicial supervision, on condition that
such provisions already exist in national law by 17 July 1998.          (1) OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 1.
According to a Joint Declaration of the Commission and the
Council on the adoption of Directive 98/50, only Italy had
legislation of that type. Furthermore, in that event also the
principle that workers’ rights should be protected remains
untouched. That principle is not observed by the contested
Italian legislation, which provides sic et simpliciter for the
disapplication of Directive 77/187.
                                                                        Action brought on 4 April 2001 by the Hellenic Republic
(1) OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26.                                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-148/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/46)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 4 April 2001 by the Hellenic Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, legal Adviser in the State
gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 2001 in                  Legal Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that
the case of (1) Weber’s Wine World HandelsgesmbH,                       Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(2) Ernestine Rathgeber, (3) Karl Schlosser, (4) Beta-                  Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
  Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-147/01)
                                                                        —     grant the application;
                         (2001/C 173/45)
                                                                        —     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
                                                                              C(2001) 198 Final of 1 March 2001 excluding from
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Community financing certain expenditure incurred by
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-                   the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 2001, which                 European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
was received at the Court Registry on 2 April 2001, for a                     (EAGGF).
preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Weber’s Wine World
HandelsgesmbH, (2) Ernestine Rathgeber, (3) Karl Schlosser,
(4) Beta-Leasing GmbH v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien                 Pleas in law and main arguments
on the following question:
                                                                        The Hellenic Republic contends that a financial correction has
Do Article 10 EC (formerly Article 5 of the EC Treaty) and              been imposed upon it unlawfully so far as concerns the
point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of           amount of the interest due for late payment of the additional
Justice of the European Communities of 9 March 2000 in Case             levy in the milk and milk products sector.
C-437/97 Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v Abgaben-
berufungskommission Wien and Wein & Co. HandelsgesmbH,
formerly Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Oberöster-                The Hellenic Republic contends that the proposed financial
reichische Landesregierung [2000] ECR I-1157, according to              correction should be annulled because the applicable legal
which Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC (1) may not be relied         provisions have been misinterpreted and the statement of
on in support of claims relating to a tax such as the duty on           reasons is insufficient.
alcoholic beverages paid or chargeable prior to the date of that
judgment, except by claimants who before that date initiated
legal proceedings or raised an equivalent administrative claim,


title: Case C-534/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Andrea Gaiti, Sidi Amidou Billa, Joseph Arasomwan, Giuseppe Carissimi, Sahabou Songne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/10

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Andrea Gaiti, Sidi Amidou Billa, Joseph Arasomwan, Giuseppe Carissimi, Sahabou Songne
   (Case C-534/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Criminal proceedings against

   Andrea Gaiti, Sidi Amidou Billa, Joseph Arasomwan, Giuseppe Carissimi, Sahabou Songne

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-299/08: Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/29

         Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Elf Aquitaine v Commission
   (Case T-299/08)
   (2008/C 272/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: E.Morgan de Rivery, S.Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities No C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 in so far as it concerns Elf Aquitaine;

               —

               in the alternative:

                           —

                           annul or reduce, pursuant to Article 229 EC, the fine of EUR 22 700 000 imposed jointly and severally on Arkema France SA and Elf Aquitaine by Article 2(c) of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities No C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008;

                           —

                           annul or reduce, pursuant to Article 229 EC, the fine of EUR 15 890 000 imposed on Elf Aquitaine by Article 2(e) of the Decision of the European Communities No C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate, in which the Commission declared that certain undertakings, including the applicant, had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the European Economic Area Agreement by allocating sales volumes, fixing prices, exchanging sensitive commercial information about prices and sales volumes and by monitoring the implementation of those anti-competitive agreements in the market for sodium chlorate in the European Economic Area.
   In support of its claims, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law based on:

               —

               infringement of the rules governing the responsibility for offences within corporate groups in so far as (i) the Commission incorrectly stated that it was not obliged to adduce evidence supporting the presumption that a holding company which owns 100 % of a subsidiary has a decisive influence over the latter; (ii) the evidence actually relied upon by the Commission did not such support this presumption and (iii) the Commission rejected the body of evidence presented by the applicant with a view to overturning that presumption;

               —

               infringement of the applicant's right to a fair hearing and the principles of equality of arms, the presumption of innocence, individual responsibility and appropriateness of the punishment, of legality and equal treatment as regards the imputation of liability;

               —

               distortion of the body of evidence adduced by the applicant;

               —

               conflicting reasons with regard to the concept of an undertaking for the purposes of Article 81(1) EC, with regard to the independence of the subsidiary Arkema France vis-à-vis the applicant and to the degree and nature of control that must be exercised by a holding company over its subsidiary for it to be held responsible for the breaches of the latter;

               —

               infringement of the principle of sound administration in so far as the Commission (i) did not carefully and impartially examine all the relevant evidence, (ii) did not apply the same rules to itself as it applied to the parties and (iii) did not suspend the proceedings initiated against the applicant pending the passing of judgment in relevant cases pending before the Court of First Instance;

               —

               infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the Commission did not follow criteria applied in previous decisions with respect to the responsibility of a holding company for the breaches a subsidiary;

               —

               an abuse of power, since the penalties imposed deviated from their legitimate purpose, that being to punish an undertaking for having committed an infringement;

               —

               the unfounded nature of the imposition of a fine specific to the applicant in infringement of the principle of the autonomy of a legal person and the taking of the deterrent effect into account twice whilst fixing the level of the fine;

               —

               infringement of the principles and rules concerning the calculation of fines;

               —

               infringement of the leniency notice (1) by alleging that the evidence adduced by the subsidiary Arkema France was insufficient; and

               —

               the fact that it is inequitable to impose the heaviest penalty on the applicant by means of two separate fines when the responsibility of the subsidiary Arkema France was significantly less than that of EKA and Finnish Chemicals.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case C-255/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Trento — Special Section — by order of that court of 6 June 2000 in the case of Grundig Italiana SpA against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
26.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 247/23
that the particular legislation constitutes discrimination incom-        ‘Does Regulation 2200/96 (1) (and did Regulation 1035/72 (2)
patible with the Treaty in the field of the free movement of             when it was in force) give rise to a legal duty resting upon
capital (Article 56 EC, ex Article 73b).                                 persons who trade in a fruit or a vegetable within the
                                                                         Community to comply with the requirements as regards
                                                                         variety name laid down by a quality standard which is
                                                                         applicable to that fruit or vegetable, which a national court
                                                                         should enforce in civil proceedings brought at the suit of a
                                                                         person who is a substantial grower within the Community of
                                                                         the fruit or vegetable concerned?’
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins
Vétérinaires by a decision of 10 June 2000 in the case of                (1) of the Council of 28 October 1996 on the common organization
                                                                             of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1).
                 Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd
                                                                         (2) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972, p. 1.
                         (Case C-252/00)
                         (2000/C 247/32)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins Vétéri-
naires (French language Joint Appeal Board of the Association
of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgium) of 10 June 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 26 June 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd.
The Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre
des Médecins Vétérinaires asks the Court of Justice to rule on           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
the following question:                                                  Trento — Special Section — by order of that court of
                                                                         6 June 2000 in the case of Grundig Italiana SpA against
                                                                                Ministero delle Finanze
On a proper construction, does Article 85 of the EC Treaty
prohibit the ban on advertising laid down by the Upper
Council of the Association of Veterinary Surgeons in the 1983                                       (Case C-255/00)
Code of Conduct, in particular in so far as the Code does not
allow objective information to be given in a professional
context about an artificial insemination centre for horses run                                      (2000/C 247/34)
by a veterinary surgeon?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Trento
                                                                         (District Court, Trento) of 6 June 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Grundig Italiana SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         (Ministry of Finance) on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division, by order of that court
of 14 June 2000, in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia                  ‘Is a national provision, namely the last part of Article 29(1)
SA and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd                   of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990, compatible with
          and 2) Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd                         Community law and in particular with the often stated
                                                                         principle of effectiveness (inter alia, Case C-343/1996 Dilex-
                                                                         port, Case C-260/1996 Spac, Case C-231/1996 Edis, Case
                         (Case C-253/00)
                                                                         C-228/1996 Aprile, Case C-261/1995 Palmisani) where it lays
                                                                         down a period of grace of 90 days within which, in order to
                         (2000/C 247/33)                                 avoid the three-year time-limit introduced retroactively in
                                                                         place of a previous five-year limitation period, a party enjoying
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   a right to recover a sum paid but not due resulting from a
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                  payment made prior to the entry into force of the said
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 June 2000, which was            provision must bring a legal action?’
received at the Court Registry on 26 June 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA
and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd and 2)
Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd, on the following question:


title: Case T-72/12: Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Annulment of the contested acts — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/38

         Order of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case T-72/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Annulment of the contested acts - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 343/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran (Iran)) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons and entities to whom those restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association.

               3.

               Bank Mellat, the Council of the European Union, Provincial Investment Companies Association, Saba Tamin Investment Company, Common Investment Fund (Pars Fund), Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group, Sorbon Industrial Production Group and Individual Stock Association shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case F-17/07: Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/35

         Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Pouzol v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-17/07)
   (2007/C 117/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel Pouzol (Chemin des Peyridisses, France) (represented by: D. Grisay, I. Andoulsi and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 23 November 2006 and the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 18 May 2006;

               —

               grant the applicant a supplementary premium in his years of pensionable service of 6 years, 10 months and 1 day, that is, an overall premium in the years of pensionable service of 10 years, 3 months and 24 days;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to translate that premium in the years of pensionable service into a pension supplement for the applicant of EUR 1 232,32 per month;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant, assessed at the date when this application was lodged to be EUR 17 252,48 (that is, a shortfall for the applicant of EUR 1 232,32 per month, from his retirement on 1 January 2006, until 1 March 2007);

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant over more than 13 years, the amount of damages to be established subsequently in an amicable settlement between the parties;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former Court of Auditors official now retired, disputes in particular the calculation of the transfer of the pension rights which he had acquired in France to the Community scheme, in so far as that calculation does not take into account pension rights acquired from the Association des régimes de retraites complémentaires (Association of Supplementary Pension Schemes) (ARRCO) and the Association générale des institutions de retraite des cadres (General Association of Pension Institutions for Managerial Staff) (AGIRC).
   In support of his action, the applicant is putting forward four pleas alleging, respectively: (i) the infringement of a number of provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex VIII thereto (in particular, of Article 11(2) and Article 26 of that annex); (ii) breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the duty to provide assistance referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials; (iii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; (iv) infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


               12.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/39

         Action brought on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-17/16)
   (2017/C 9/09)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application) as adapted by way of Protocol 1 thereto and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 9 April 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 9 February 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application, as referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-286/16: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Activity of passenger road transport services — Tax — Facts prior to the accession of Romania to the European Union — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/13

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj
   (Case C-286/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Activity of passenger road transport services - Tax - Facts prior to the accession of Romania to the European Union - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2017/C 249/18)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Exmitiani SRL

      Defendant: Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice Cluj

      Re:

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania).

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-279/12: Action brought on 25 June 2012 — S.I.C.O.M v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/32

         Action brought on 25 June 2012 — S.I.C.O.M v Commission
   (Case T-279/12)
   2012/C 243/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: S.I.C.O.M. Srl — Società industriale per il confezionamento degli olii meridionale (Cercola, Italy) (represented by: R. Manzi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that S.I.C.O.M. Srl, in liquidation, is owed by the Commission the sum of EUR 24 338,10 plus interest and adjustment to be calculated in accordance with Article 18(7) of Commission Regulation No 2519/1997, or such other sum as the Court may decide and, consequently, order the Commission to pay the sums thereby awarded;

               —

               Consequently, order the Commission to pay the costs together with any tax or contribution due.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present case is the successful tenderer in Action No 35 — adjudicated upon pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 664/2001 of 2 April 2001 on the supply of vegetable oil as food aid (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 3) — concerning the provision of 500 tonnes of refined rapeseed oil, in 5-litre cans, which were delivered on a free-at-destination basis at Tombo PAM Warehouse in Guinea by 17 June 2001. The applicant challenges the fact that the Commission withheld part of the payment, imposing a penalty for late delivery and a further penalty for non-delivery.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               As regards the imposition of the penalty for non-delivery of goods, the applicant states that, in fact, the goods actually delivered amounted to 498,819 tonnes, namely, 1,435 tonnes less than that laid down in the call for tenders. In that connection, the applicant relies on the 1 % tolerance laid down in Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid (OJ 1997 L 346, p. 23). As regards Article 15 of that regulation, the applicant states that, in the present case, it is a fact that the goods actually delivered to the beneficiary amounted to 498,819 tonnes, as is apparent from the delivery certificate and, therefore, any subsequent event resulting in a reduction in the amount of goods could not have been attributable to the applicant.

               2.

               As regards the penalty for late delivery, the applicant invokes the force majeure exemption with regard to the sudden delay of the motor vessel involved in the operation — near to the port of landing of Naples — and, consequently, the 30-day extension laid down in Article 14(15) of Regulation No 2519/97. On that point, the applicant also invokes Articles 22(4) and 25 of that regulation.


title: Case T-1/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/21

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission
   (Case T-1/08 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 116/38)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented initially by: T. Gackowski and subsequently by D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, M. Kaduczak and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-560/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Projects for the widening and/or upgrading of the M-501 road in Spain — ZEP ES 0000056 ‘Encinares del río Alberche y río Cofio’ ZEP ES0000056 — Proposed SCI ES310005 ‘Cuenca del río Guadarrama’ and proposed SCI ES3110007 ‘Cuenca de los ríos Alberche y Cofio’ )

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-560/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Projects for the widening and/or upgrading of the M-501 road in Spain - ZEP ES 0000056 ‘Encinares del río Alberche y río Cofio’ ZEP ES0000056 - Proposed SCI ES310005 ‘Cuenca del río Guadarrama’ and proposed SCI ES3110007 ‘Cuenca de los ríos Alberche y Cofio’)
   2012/C 39/02
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillàn, D. Recchia and J.-B Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: K. Rokicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(1), 3, 4(1) or 2, 5, 6(2), 8 and 9 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) and Article 6(3) and (4), read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 12(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05 — Projects for the widening and/or upgrading of the M-501 road — ZEP ES 0000056 ‘Encinares del río Alberche y río Cofio’ — Proposed SCI ES 310005 ‘Cuenca del río Guadarrama’ and proposed SCI ES 3110007 ‘Cuenca de los ríos Alberche y Cofio’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to fulfil the requirements laid down:

                           —

                           by Articles 2(1), 3, 4(1) or (2), as the case may be, and 5 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading sections 1, 2 and 4 of the M-501 road;

                           —

                           by Articles 6(2) and 8 of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, as regards separate projects for widening and/or upgrading of section 2 and 4 of that road;

                           —

                           by Article 9 of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading section 1, 2 and 4 of that road;

                           —

                           by Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading sections 1, 2 and 4 of the M-501 road, as regards special protection area ‘Encinares del río Alberche y río Cofio’; and

                           —

                           by Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of that directive, in relation to separate projects for widening and/or upgrading section 1 of the M-501 road, as regards proposed site of Community importance ES3110005 ‘Cuenca del río Guadarrama’, and sections 2 and 4 of that road, as regards proposed site of Community importance ES3110007 ‘Cuencas de los ríos Alberche y Cofio’,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Frosinone by order of that court of 27 June 1995 in the case of Rosalba Palmisani v. INPS (Case C-261/95)

text:
No C 268/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            is a law of a Member State which, in laying down the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 11 May 1995 in               procedural rules by which citizens who have a right to the
the case of Julius Fillibeck Sôhne GmbH &c Co KG v.                    reparation of damage conferred on them by Community law
                       Finanzamt Neustadt                              following the failure to implement directives which are not
                         ( Case C-258/95 )                             directly applicable, requires the injured party to bring
                             95/C 268/25 )
                                                                       judicial proceedings subject to a one-year limitation period
                                                                       starting from the date when the aforementioned domestic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 rules entered into force compatible with the correct
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as construed in
( Federal Finance Court ) — Fifth Senate — of 1 1 May 1 995 ,          the light of the principles laid down in the case-law of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1995 ,             Court of Justice cited in the grounds of this order, where, in
                                                                       contrast, under the domestic law of the Member State in
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Julius Fillibeck Sohne
GmbH & Co KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt on the following                    question actions for the reparation of non-contractual
questions :                                                            damage are normally subject to a five-year prescription
                                                                       period and the action for obtaining social security payments
1 . does the transport service of an employer constitute a             under the statutory system arising out of the full
    service 'effected for consideration' within the meaning            implementation of the Directive ( Directive 80/987/EEC of
    of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/3 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) — that is to    20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
    say, effected for a proportion to be estimated of the              Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
    work performed by the employees — where, pursuant to               event of the insolvency of the employer ) is subject to a
    a collective agreement, the employer carries employees             time-limit of one year, which, however, is a period of
     ( without specially agreed and calculated consideration )         prescription, thereby introducing, for the purposes of the
    from their homes to the workplace where they are more              judicial protection of rights based on Community law, a
    than a specified distance apart, and the work performed            procedural mechanism which differs in the aforementioned
    — which has no actual connection with such transport               respects from ' similar' actions and remedies provided for by
    services — is already to be carried out in return for the          the domestic law of the Member State in question, it being
    agreed money wages as in the case of the other                     pointed out that, in any event, all claims for payments to be
    employees ?                                                        made by the agency which is under a duty under the law to
                                                                       make reparation for the damage are subject at present to a
2 . Does Article 6 ( 2)ofDirective77/388/EECcovertheuse                one-year limitation period under the domestic law of the
    of goods forming part of the assets of the business or a           Member State in question ? Is the national court bound,
    service carried out free of charge even where — as in the          where appropriate , to disapply that limitation period,
    case of the carriage of employees from their homes to the          thereby enabling citizens who have suffered damage to bring
    workplace and back in a vehicle of the undertaking free            an action outside the one-year limitation period and, if so,
    of charge — it does not serve purposes other than those            within the five-year prescription period prescribed for the
    of the business as far as the employer is concerned , but          ordinary action for reparation or within the one-year
    does serve the employees' private purposes and the                 prescription period laid down for obtaining social security
    employees are not charged turnover tax in this respect             payments under the ' basic' system ?
     ( on account of their use free of charge of the transport
    service )?
3 . In the event that question 2 is answered in the
    affirmative : does Article 6 ( 2 ) of Directive 77/338/EEC
    also cover a case where the employer does not carry the
    employees in its own vehicles, but commissions a third             Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
    party ( in the instant case, one of its own employees ) to            European Communities against the French Republic
    effect the transport ?
                                                                                Case C-265 /95 )
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                                         95/C 268 /27
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
Circondariale di Frosinone by order of that court of 27 June           Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
        1995 in the case of Rosalba Palmisani v. INPS                  Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national official on
                         ( Case C-261/95 )
                                                                       secondment to the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                           ( 95/C 268/26 )                             Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 June 1995 of the                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Pretura Circondariale di Frosinone ( Magistrates' Court,               the Court should :
Fronsinone ), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                — declare that, by failing to adopt all the appropriate
Pasalba Palmisani v . INPS on the following question :                     measures necessary in order to prevent acts committed


title: Case C-455/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Decision 2009/906/CFSP — European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina — National staff member on secondment — Redeployment in a regional office of that mission — Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU — First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU — Actions for annulment and compensation — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina
   (Case C-455/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Decision 2009/906/CFSP - European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina - National staff member on secondment - Redeployment in a regional office of that mission - Final sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU - First paragraph of Article 275 TFEU - Actions for annulment and compensation - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Article 263 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU))
   (2016/C 343/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, G. Gattinara and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents), European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 10 July 2014 in H v Council and Others (T-271/10, not published, EU:T:2014:702);

               2.

               Dismisses H’s action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission and the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the substance of the action in so far as it is directed against the Council of the European Union;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-350/14: Action brought on 12 May 2014  — Arvanitis and Others v European Parliament and Others

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/28

         Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Arvanitis and Others v European Parliament and Others
   (Case T-350/14)
   (2014/C 439/38)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Athanasios Arvanitis (Rhodes, Greece) and 47 other applicants (represented by: K. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendants failed to legislate so that the general principles of EU law, and in particular the directive on fixed-term work, apply fully upon their dismissal from the former Olimpiaki Aeroporia that was imposed by decision of the European Commission and incorporated into Greek law by Law No 3717/2008;

               —

               grant the applicants and all the dismissed employees of the former Olimpiaki Aeroporia by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act the ability to receive the compensation to which they would have been entitled as permanent employees upon their compulsory dismissal/departure from Olimpiaki Aeroporia;

               —

               grant compensation of EUR 3 00  000 by a directly applicable Community measure, directive, regulation or other Community legislative act to each of the applicants for the hardship and distress that they have suffered, the gross breach of their fundamental rights and the premature cessation of their working life.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea: Law No 3717/2008, which provided for the closure of Olimpiaki Aeroporia and the dismissal of all its temporary employees, is a purely Community measure that in essence was imposed by the institutions of the European Union, in particular the ECB and the European Commission, and all the legislative measures of the Greek Government were adopted on the recommendation and, to be more precise, after decision of the Eurogroup, ECOFIN, the ECB and the European Commission.

               2.

               Second plea: the failure to equate the dismissed temporary employees/workers of the former Olimpiaki Aeroporia with the other, permanent, employees of Olimpiaki Aeroporia and the failure to compensate them expressly on their departure from that company has caused them direct, personal and serious harm and denied them enjoyment of their fundamental rights.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 October 2004 in Case C-8/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)): Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA (BBL) v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 4 and 9(2)(e) — Concept of taxable person — Place where services are supplied — SICAV)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 21 October 2004
   in Case C-8/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)): Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA (BBL) v Belgian State (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 4 and 9(2)(e) - Concept of taxable person - Place where services are supplied - SICAV)
   (2004/C 300/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-8/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) (Brussels Court of First Instance), made by decision of 24 December 2002, received at the Court on 10 January 2003, in the proceedings between Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA (BBL) and Belgian State — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Open-ended investment companies (SICAVs) which have as their sole object the collective investment in transferable securities of capital raised from the public in accordance with Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) are taxable persons within the meaning of Article 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, so that, where services referred to in Article 9(2)(e) of that directive are supplied to such SICAVs which are established in a Member State other than that of the supplier of the services, the place where those services are provided is the place where the SICAVs have established their business.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


29.11.2003            EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 289/19
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-194/02 (1)
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                                     (2003/C 289/39)
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not         By order of 30 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      communicating those provisions to the Commission, the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          register of Case C-194/02: Commission of the European
      under Article 15 of that directive;                              Communities v Republic of Austria.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
expired on 30 July 2000.
(1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-226/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/40)
                         (2003/C 289/38)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice         By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/02: Commission of the European
                                                                       register of Case C-226/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                     the Østre Landsret): Remedan af 1985 ApS v Skatteministeriet.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-139/09: Action brought on 16 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/33

         Action brought on 16 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-139/09)
   2009/C 141/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. de Schietere de Lophem and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2006/21/EC expired on 30 April 2008. At the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified those measures to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2005 in Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02: (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) Finanzamt Gladbeck v Edith Linneweber and Finanzamt Herne-West v Savvas Akritidis (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for games of chance — Determination of the conditions and limitations to which the exemption is subject — Liability of games organised outside public casinos — Respect for the principle of fiscal neutrality — Article 13B( f) — Direct effect)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 17 February 2005
   in Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02: (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) Finanzamt Gladbeck v Edith Linneweber and Finanzamt Herne-West v Savvas Akritidis (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption for games of chance - Determination of the conditions and limitations to which the exemption is subject - Liability of games organised outside public casinos - Respect for the principle of fiscal neutrality - Article 13B( f) - Direct effect)
   (2005/C 93/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decisions of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 13 and 23 December 2002, in the proceedings Finanzamt Gladbeck v Edith Linneweber (C-453/02 and Finanzamt Herne-West v Savvas Akritidis (C-462/02) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 13B(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment precludes national legislation which provides that the operation of all games of chance and gaming machines is exempt from VAT where it is carried out in licensed public casinos, while the operation of the same activity by traders other than those running casinos does not enjoy that exemption.

               2.

               Article 13B(f) of the Sixth Directive has direct effect in the sense that it can be relied on by an operator of games of chance or gaming machines before national courts to prevent the application of rules of national law which are inconsistent with that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.