title: Judgment of the Court 19 March 2002 in Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Tournai): Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) v Claude Hervein, Hervillier SA (C-393/99), Guy Lorthiois, Comtexbel SA (C-394/99) (Freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment — Social security — Determination of the legislation applicable — Persons who are simultaneously employed and self-employed in the territory of different Member States — Cover by the social security legislation of each of those States — Validity of Article 14c(1)(b), now Article 14c(b), of and Annex VII to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
18.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 118/5
1.   Declares that:                                                             —     by requiring, under Article 9(3) of Decree No 129/92
                                                                                and Articles 7 and 8 of Decree No 776/94, architects
                                                                                established in other Member States who wish to provide
                                                                                services in Italy to register with the local provincial council
     —    by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement                 of the professional body for architects and by delaying, by
          Articles 4(1), second subparagraph, 4(2), 11(k), seventh                    that formality, in breach of Article 22 of Directive 85/
          indent, and 14 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of                           384, the provision by architects of their first services in
          10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas,                         Italy,
          certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in
          architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective          the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
          exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to                 Articles 12, 22, 27 and 31 of Directive 85/384 and, in
          provide services, as amended by Council Directive 86/17/              respect of the prohibition under Article 9(1) of Decree No 129/
          EEC of 27 January 1986 amending, on account of the                    92, under Article 59 of the Treaty;
          accession of Portugal, Directive 85/384,
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                                                                          3.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     —    by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement
          the automatic recognition of diplomas, certificates and
          other evidence of formal qualifications in accordance with      (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
          Articles 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Directive 85/384,
     —    by adopting Article 4(2)(a) of Legislative Decree No 129
          of the President of the Republic of 27 January 1992
          which, in breach of Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC), lays
          down a general requirement that the application for
          recognition of a qualification be accompanied by the                                         19 March 2002
          original diploma or a certified copy thereof,
                                                                          in Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99 (Reference for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Tour-
                                                                          nai): Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travail-
     —    by adopting Article 4(2)(c) of Decree No 129/92 and             leurs indépendants (Inasti) v Claude Hervein, Hervillier
          Article 4(1)(c) of Decree No 776 of the Minister for            SA (C-393/99), Guy Lorthiois, Comtexbel SA (C-394/
          Universities and Scientific and Technological Research of                                          99) (1)
          10 June 1994 which, in breach of Article 52 of the
          Treaty, lay down a general requirement that the appli-
          cation for recognition of a qualification be accompanied        (Freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establish-
          by a certificate of nationality,                                ment — Social security — Determination of the legislation
                                                                          applicable — Persons who are simultaneously employed and
                                                                          self-employed in the territory of different Member States —
                                                                          Cover by the social security legislation of each of those States
     —    by adopting Article 4(3) of Decree No 129/92 and                — Validity of Article 14c(1)(b), now Article 14c(b), of and
          Article 10 of Decree No 776/94 which, in breach of                       Annex VII to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
          Article 52 of the Treaty, require as a matter of course an
          official translation of all documents attached to an                                        (2002/C 118/07)
          application for recognition of a qualification,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     —    by adopting Article 11(1)(c) and (d) of Decree No 129/          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
          92 which, in breach of Article 12 of Directive 85/384,                               in the European Court Reports)
          provides for the recognition of qualifications acquired after
          5 August 1987,
                                                                          In Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99: Reference to the
                                                                          Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal du travail, Tournai
     —    by retaining Article 9(1) of Decree No 129/92 which, in         (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
          breach of Article 59 of the Treaty, imposes a general           before that court between Institut national d’assurances socia-
          prohibition on architects established in other Member           les pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) and Claude Hervein,
          States who wish to provide services in Italy from creating      Hervillier SA (C-393/99), Guy Lorthiois, Comtexbel SA
          on Italian territory a principal or secondary place of          (C-394/99), on the validity of Article 14c(1)b, now
          business,                                                       Article 14c(b), of and Annex VII to Regulation (EEC)
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18.5.2002
No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230,
p. 6), and as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/
86 of 11 December 1986 (OJ 1986 L 355, p. 5), the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,                                              21 March 2002
F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathe-
let and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                 in Case C-451/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                 the Handelsgericht Wien): Cura Anlagen GmbH v Auto
19 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                                       Service Leasing GmbH (ASL) (1)
                                                                           (Vehicle leasing — Prohibition on using in a Member State
                                                                           for longer than a certain time a vehicle registered in another
Examination of the questions referred has not disclosed any factor of      Member State — Obligations to register the vehicle and to
such a kind as to affect the validity:                                     pay a consumption tax in the Member State of use —
                                                                           Obligation to insure with an insurer authorised in the
                                                                           Member State of use — Obligation to undergo roadworthi-
                                                                           ness testing — Restrictions on the freedom to provide
—     of Article 14c(1)(b) of and Annex VII to Regulation No 1408/                               services — Justifications)
      71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
      and to members of their families moving within the Community,                                    (2002/C 118/08)
      as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     of Article 14(b) of and Annex VII to that regulation, as
      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      11 December 1986.                                                                         in the European Court Reports)
However, it is, where appropriate, for the national court hearing          In Case C-451/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
disputes in the context of the application of that provision, first, to    EC by the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ascertain that the legislation of the States concerned applied in that     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
context is applied in accordance with Articles 48 and 52 of the            Cura Anlagen GmbH and Auto Service Leasing GmbH (ASL),
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), and in            on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC and Article 28
particular that the national legislation whose conditions for appli-       EC,the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr,
cation are at issue does afford social security cover for the person       President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of
concerned, and, second, to determine whether that provision should,        the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
exceptionally, be disapplied at the request of the worker concerned        (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
where it would cause him to lose a social security advantage which he      Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
originally enjoyed under a social security convention in force between     given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
two or more Member States.
                                                                           The provisions of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services
                                                                           (Articles 49 EC to 55 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State,
                                                                           such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring an
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.                                                undertaking established in that Member State which takes a lease of
                                                                           a vehicle registered in another Member State to register it in the first
                                                                           Member State in order to be able to use it there beyond a period that
                                                                           is so short, in this case three days, that it makes it impossible or
                                                                           excessively difficult to comply with the requirements imposed. The
                                                                           same provisions of the Treaty preclude legislation of a Member State,
                                                                           such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring an
                                                                           undertaking established in that Member State which takes a lease of


title: Case T-166/08: Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Ivanov v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/23

         Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Ivanov v Commission
   (Case T-166/08)
   (2008/C 183/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vladimir Ivanov (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Commission is liable for infringement of the principles of transparency, proper administration, non-discrimination and equal treatment in connection with the recruitment procedure which took place following the vacancy notice for a post as a ‘Pre-enlargement Adviser and Political Rapporteur’ based in Sofia, in May 2003;

               —

               Order the Commission to make good, on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the damage which it caused to the applicant;

               —

               Accordingly, order the Commission to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 180 000 as damages for the loss sustained;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material damage sustained by the applicant;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 2003, the applicant applied for a local member of staff's post as a ‘Pre-enlargement Adviser’ in Sofia. His application was rejected at the preliminary selection stage on account of his dual Franco-Bulgarian nationality as only candidates who had the nationality of a Member State were eligible for the vacant post.
   During the recruitment procedure and after the rejection of his application, the applicant unsuccessfully requested more information regarding the procedure and the reasons for the rejection of his application. He then brought the matter before the European Ombudsman, who concluded that there had been maladministration and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination or of equal treatment on the part of the Commission.
   By the present action, the applicant requests that the Court of First Instance declare that the Commission is non-contractually liable for infringement of the principles of transparency, proper administration, non-discrimination and equal treatment in connection with the recruitment procedure in question.


title: Case C-484/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2007 — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2007 — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-484/07)
   (2008/C 8/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fatma Pehlivan

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   Questions referred

               1a.

               Must the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Association Decision 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that that article is applicable if a family member has actually cohabited with a Turkish worker for three years without the right of residence of that family member being challenged by the competent national authorities during those three years?

               1b.

               Does the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Association Decision 1/80 prevent a Member State from stipulating during those three years that, if the family member who has been admitted marries, no rights are further acquired under that provision, even if the family member continues to live with the Turkish worker?

               2.

               Does the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 or any other provision or principle of European law prevent the competent national authorities from challenging the right of residence of the foreign national concerned with retroactive effect after that period of three years under national rules determining whether that person is a family member and/or was legally resident during those three years?

               3a.

               Is it of any relevance to the answers to the above questions whether or not the foreign national intentionally withholds information which is relevant to his right of residence under national legislation? If so, in what way?

               3b.

               Does it make any difference in this context whether that information becomes known in the aforementioned period of three years or only after those three years have elapsed, bearing in mind that, after that information has become known, the competent national authorities possibly need to undertake (further) investigations before reaching their decision? If so, in what way?


title: Case T-136/02: Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 156/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant argues infringement of
                                                                         The Commission decision against which the present action is
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the
                                                                         brought is the same as that contested in Case T-109/92 Bolloré
principle of non-discrimination and a manifest error of
                                                                         v Commission (1). In that decision, the Commission found that
assessment. According to the applicant, any objective consider-
                                                                         the applicant had participated in the national meetings of
ation of the respective merits of the officials eligible for
                                                                         the secret European cartel in the context of the European
promotion would not have led to his being disregarded.
                                                                         Association of Manufacturers of Carbonless Paper (AEMPC),
                                                                         the adoption and concerted application of price increases, the
                                                                         sharing of sales and market quotas in the copying paper sector
                                                                         and the establishment of control mechanisms.
                                                                         In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-                      the principles of presumption of innocence and of the burden
coana de Zicuñaga, S.A. against Commission of the                       of proof. In that regard, it denies having participated in the
                     European Communities                                meetings held for the purpose of organising the European
                                                                         cartel. The applicant emphasises that the defendant institution
                                                                         ignored not only the fact that the applicant does not belong to
                         (Case T-136/02)                                 the AEMPC but also the fact that that association did not
                                                                         possess information relating to the applicant’s prices and sales
                                                                         volumes.
                         (2002/C 156/68)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicant claims that the fine imposed on it should be
                                                                         reduced by at least 60 %. Apart from what has already been
                                                                         stated in the preceding paragraph, the applicant emphasises
                                                                         that the infringements imputed to it are alleged to have lasted
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                for less than one year.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-
coana de Zicuñaga, S.A., whose registered office is at Hernani
(Guipúzcoa, Spain), represented by Iñigo Quintana Aguirre.
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in OJ.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
      ber 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
      of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
      (Case COMPE/E/1/36.212 — Carbonless paper), in so far
      as it finds that Zicuñaga participated in the infringement
      and in so far as it relates to the duration of the                 Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Armin Petrich against
      infringement, and Article 3 in relation to the fine imposed               the Commission of the European Communities
      in Article 4;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                                          (Case T-145/02)
      applicant in the contested decision as follows:
      (a)   annul the application of the excess of 10 % applied                                   (2002/C 156/69)
            by the Commission on the ground that a duration
            in excess of one year was not imputed to the
            applicant;                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
      (b) reduce substantially (by a minimum of 60 %) the
            basic penalty imposed to take account of the
            mitigating circumstances indicated;                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      (c)   award costs to the applicant, including expenditure          European Communities by Armin Petrich, of Travemünde,
            and interest for the guarantees provided, deriving           Germany, represented by Patrick Goergen, lawyer, with an
            from the handling of the entire procedure.                   address for service in Luxembourg,


title: Case F-69/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2015 — Carreira v ESMA

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/62

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2015 — Carreira v ESMA
   (Case F-69/14) (1)

   (2015/C 279/81)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27/10/2014, p. 27.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 June 1998 in Case C-214/97: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 75/440/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 258/11
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court,
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               Schleswig-Holstein) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                     the proceedings pending before that Court between
                       of 17 June 1998                               Wilhelm Mecklenburg and Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der
in Case C-68/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Landrat, intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen
the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v                     Interesses, Kiel Ð on the interpretation of Articles 2(a)
                  Ministero delle Finanze (1)                        and 3(2), third indent, of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
                                                                     7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
(National tax on audiovisual and photo-optical products              the environment (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 56) Ð the
Ð Internal taxation Ð Possible incompatibility with                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                       Community law)                                President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.
                        (98/C 258/19)                                Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La
                                                                     Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June
                                                                          1990 on the freedom of access to informationon the
In Case C-68/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                 environment is to be interpreted as covering a
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a                 statement of views given by a countryside protection
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 authority in development consent proceedings if that
Court between Grundig Italiana SpA and Ministero delle                    statement is capable of influencing the outcome of
Finanze Ð on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC                   those proceedings as regards interests pertaining to the
Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                       protection of the environment.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
                                                                     2. The term preliminary investigation proceedings' in the
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                          third indent of Article 3(2) of the Directive is to be
given a judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          interpreted as including an administrative procedure
                                                                          such as that referred to in Paragraph 7(1)(2) of the
Article 95 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as                        Umweltinformationsgesetz, which merely prepares the
precluding a Member State from introducing and levying a                  way for an administrative measure, only if it
consumption tax in so far as the taxable amount and the                   immediately precedes a contentious or quasi-
procedure for collecting the tax are different for domestic               contentious procedure and arises from the need to
products and for products imported from other Member                      obtain proof or to investigate a matter prior to the
States.                                                                   opening of the actual procedure.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 17 June 1998                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-321/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   of 17 June 1998
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                in    Case   C-214/97: Commission of the European
Wilhelm Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg Ð Der Landrat,                            Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)
intervening party: Der Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses,
                            Kiel (1)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                     Directive 75/440/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
(Environment Ð Access to information Ð Directive 90/                                       prescribed period)
313/EEC Ð Administrative measure for the protection of
 the environment Ð Preliminary investigation proceedings)                                    (98/C 258/21)
                        (98/C 258/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-321/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-214/97: Commission of the European
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                   Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/12              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.8.98
Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and JoaÄo                  EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
Lopes Fernandes) Ð application for a declaration that, by              dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
failing to draw up a systematic plan of action and time-               environment of the Community (1), the Kingdom of the
table for the improvement of surface waters and, in the                Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under
alternative, by failing to inform the Commission forthwith             that Directive and under Article 189 of the EC Treaty;
of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty and the provisions of                 (2) orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning                costs.
the quality required of surface water intended for the
abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ
L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch and K. M.
Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer,
                                                                   The Commission considers that the Kingdom of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                   Netherlands has infringed Directive 76/464/EEC (the
judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                   Directive') by failing to lay down quality objectives in
                                                                   relation to certain substances referred to in the Directive.
1. Declares that, by failing to draw up a systematic plan
     of action including a time-table for the improvement          Ð Quality objectives in respect of the substances
     of surface water, the Portuguese Republic has failed to           enumerated in the first indent in List II in the Annex
     fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council              to the Directive: the fact that no Community limit
     Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the               values have been fixed for certain families and groups
     quality required of surface water intended for the                of substances in List I in the Annex to the Directive
     abstraction of drinking water in the Member States;               means that those substances fall within the scope of
                                                                       List II in that Annex. Moreover, it cannot be inferred
                                                                       from the phrase substances in List I for which the
                                                                       limit values . . . have not been determined' that this
2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       must be done by the giving of express notice. Even if
                                                                       the factual situation was unclear as regards the
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                             initiatives of the Commission and the Council or as to
                                                                       whether or not specific Community limit values were
                                                                       to be fixed, that cannot in any way justify the
                                                                       conclusion that a Member State is consequently
                                                                       released from the obligation to establish programmes
                                                                       for those families or groups of substances in
                                                                        accordance with Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of the
                                                                        Directive.
Action brought on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                          Netherlands                                   The fixing of emission standards on the basis of the
                                                                        best technical means available does not satisfy the
                        (Case C-152/98)                                requirement of legal certainty, which must be fulfilled
                         (98/C 258/22)                                 whenever directives are transposed.
                                                                   Ð Quality objectives in respect of the substances
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   enumerated in the second indent in List II in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    Annex to the Directive: the Kingdom of the
Communities on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of the                  Netherlands has failed to lay down quality objectives
European Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal                 for the fourth category referred to therein (organic
Adviser in its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an                  compounds of silicone, etc.) and for certain substances
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos               in the first category (titanium, boron, uranium,
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.                  tellurium and silver). The legal obligation to transpose
                                                                        the Directive into national law is not removed,
                                                                        however, by the possible existence of practical
                                                                        difficulties, especially since other Member States have
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             managed to fulfil that obligation.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(1) declare that, by failing to take adequate steps to
     transpose into national law the provisions of
     Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 76/464/


title: Case C-570/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 December 2014  — Nuria Robirosa Carrera and César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español, S.A.

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Nuria Robirosa Carrera and César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español, S.A.
   (Case C-570/14)
   (2015/C 046/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nuria Robirosa Carrera and César Romera Navales

      Defendant: Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does Article 43 of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, which precludes the court proposing to the parties a possible stay of civil proceedings when another court or tribunal has referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers?

               2)

               Does Article 721.2 of the LEC, which precludes the court adopting or proposing of its own motion the adoption of precautionary measures in individual actions in which it is claimed that a general condition is void because unfair, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers?

               3)

               Ought not any precautionary measures that might be adopted, either of the court’s own motion or at the request of one or other of the parties, in proceedings in which an individual action is brought, to have effect until final judgment shall have been given either in the individual action or in a collective action that could interfere with the bringing of individual actions, in order to ensure the adequate and effective means provided for in Article 7 of the Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-195/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Lafarge Cement v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/37

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Lafarge Cement v Commission
   (Case T-195/07)
   (2007/C 170/71)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Lafarge Cement SA (represented by: P.K. Rosiak, legal adviser, and F. Puel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in which the Commission decided that certain aspects of the Polish National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for 2008-2012, notified to the Commission on 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Articles 9(1) and (3), 10 and 13(2) of and the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. The decision in question reduces the carbon dioxide emission limit in 2008-2012 by 26.7 % compared to the limit proposed by Poland in the national allocation plan for emission allowances notified to the Commission.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the three-month period for its adoption defined in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC. As a result, according to the applicant, on 26 March 2007 the Commission was not entitled to adopt the contested decision or at least breached essential procedural requirements.
   The applicant criticises the Commission, secondly, in that the contested decision infringes criteria 1 and 2 in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, unjustifiably reducing the allocation of allowances made by Poland to a level markedly lower than that first notified, which had been consistent with the obligations assumed by Poland on the basis of the Kyoto Protocol.
   The applicant further submits that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the provisions of Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of cooperation, in so far as, instead of exercising the limited powers defined in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, without taking into account the methodologies contained in the National Allocation Plan II, it applied in the contested decision its own method of determining the average annual maximum number of allowances allocated to Poland and imposed it on Poland, usurping powers which the directive confers on the Member State. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed the principle of cooperation between the institutions of the Community and of the Member States by not informing Poland of the application of its own economic model before adopting the contested decision, thereby depriving Poland and the interested undertakings of the possibility of expressing an opinion on the subject of its appropriateness and possibly calling into question the data and bases underlying the Commission's conclusions.
   In the fourth place, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed criterion 3 in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC by making use in the contested decision of out-of-date data concerning the forecast growth of the GNP, using too general data for calculating the CO2 emission index, and arbitrarily reducing the annual degree of CO2 emissions by an additional 2.5 %.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is not adequately reasoned and for that reason infringes Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).


title: Case C-434/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Petar Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Freedom of movement of a Union citizen — Directive 2004/38/EC — Prohibition on leaving national territory because of non payment of a tax liability — Whether measure can be justified on grounds of public policy)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Petar Aladzhov v Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
      (Case C-434/10) (1)

      (Freedom of movement of a Union citizen - Directive 2004/38/EC - Prohibition on leaving national territory because of non payment of a tax liability - Whether measure can be justified on grounds of public policy)
      (2012/C 25/26)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Petar Aladzhov

         Defendant: Zamestnik direktor na Stolichna direktsia na vatreshnite raboti kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 27(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Restriction of the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of a Union citizen — Natural person, as the representative of a debtor commercial company, prohibited from leaving national territory because of the non-recovery of ‘considerable’ debts owed to a public authority — Measure justified on grounds of public policy

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  European Union law does not preclude a legislative provision of a Member State which permits an administrative authority to prohibit a national of that State from leaving it on the ground that a tax liability of a company of which he is one of the managers has not been settled, subject, however, to the twofold condition that the measure at issue is intended to respond, in certain exceptional circumstances which might arise from, inter alia, the nature or amount of the debt, to a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society and that the objective thus pursued does not solely serve economic ends. It is for the national court to determine whether that twofold condition is satisfied.

                  2.

                  Even if a measure imposing a prohibition on leaving the territory such as that applying to Mr Aladzhov in the main proceedings has been adopted under the conditions laid down in Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the conditions laid down in Article 27(2) thereof preclude such a measure,

                              —

                              if it is founded solely on the existence of the tax liability of the company of which he is one of the joint managers, and on the basis of that status alone, without any specific assessment of the personal conduct of the person concerned and with no reference to any threat of any kind which he represents to public policy, and

                              —

                              if the prohibition on leaving the territory is not appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and goes beyond what is necessary to attain it.

                        It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the position in the case before it.

         (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-528/08 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case C-528/08 P)
   (2009/C 32/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               1. In any event:

                           (1.a)

                           Annul the order under appeal in its entirety;

                           (1.b)

                           Declare the original action to be fully admissible;

                  and in addition:

               —

               2/A as a primary remedy: (2/A.1) annul the contested decision; (2/A.2) annul, in so far as necessary, the statement of reimbursement of 18 July 2005; (2/A.3) annul, to the extent necessary, the decision to reject the complaint in full; (2/A.4) order the defendant to pay to the appellant, by way of reimbursement of the additional sum needed to make up 100 %, with a view to obtaining repayment in full, of the medical expenses at issue, or by way of compensation for the damage arising as a result of the defendant's unlawful conduct, to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 89,56 or such higher or lower amount as the Court may deem to be just and equitable; (2A/.5) order the defendant to pay to the appellant default interest on the amount referred to at 2/A.4 for the period from the date on which it became due until the date of actual payment, to be determined in accordance with the applicable rules; (2/A.6) order the defendant to pay to the appellant all the costs and expenses of the proceedings;
               or

               —

               2/B. in the alternative, to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the statements of the appellant in his pleadings, arising also from the material inaccuracy of the findings of the Court of First Instance (in particular, paragraphs 29, 31, 34 and 38 of the order under appeal).

               2.

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of a challengeable act, and, in addition, confusion, irrationality, illogicality, infringement of Article 231 of the EC Treaty and failure to have regard to the case-law relating to the effects of the annulment by the Community judicature of a decision issued by a Community institution, infringement of the principle of res judicata and infringement of the principle of the separation of powers (in particular, paragraphs 32 and 34 of the order under appeal).

               3.

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 90 and 91 of the Statute and of the concept of decisions issued by a Community institution.

               4.

               Infringement of the legally-binding principle of natural justice and errors of procedure so serious as to result in the rights of the appellant being infringed, in particular the rights of the defence and the right to a just and equitable hearing.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2003 in Case T-339/03 R: Gabrielle Clotuche v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim relief — Officials — Decision reassigning the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser — Urgency — None)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                      of 18 November 2003                                                         of 28 November 2003
                                                                           in Case T-200/03 R: V v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In Case T-383/02, G.D. Searle LLC against Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                 (Application for interim relief — Application for stay of
                                                                           execution — Dismissal for inadequate performance —
                                                                                Urgency)
(Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of                                               (2004/C 71/55)
invalidity — Relative ground for invalidity — Amicable
              settlement — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2004/C 71/54)
                                                                           In Case T-200/03 R: V, an official of the defendant, residing in
                                                                           Overijse (Belgium), represented by C. Mourato, lawyer, against
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Cur-
                   (Language of the case: English)                         rall) — application for stay of execution of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 10 March 2003 to dismiss the applicant due to
                                                                           inadequate performance — the President of the Court of First
                                                                           Instance made an order on 28 November 2003, the operative
                                                                           part of which is as follows:
                                                                           1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
In Case T-383/02, G.D. Searle LLC, established in Skokie,
Illinois (United States of America), represented by W.A. Hoyng,
lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market            2.     Costs are reserved.
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agents: G. Schneider and
T. Eichenberg), the intervener before the Court of First
Instance being Phyto-Esp SL, established in Saragossa (Spain),
represented by S.H. Poelmann-Teijgeler, lawyer: Action
brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2002 (Case R 627/2001-1)                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
relating to proceedings between G.D. Searle LLC and Phyto-                                               INSTANCE
Esp SL for a declaration of invalidity, the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Men-                                   of 25 November 2003
gozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
made an order on 18 November 2003, the operative part of                   in Case T-339/03 R: Gabrielle Clotuche v Commission of
which is as follows:                                                                           the European Communities
                                                                           (Application for interim relief — Officials — Decision
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.                                      reassigning the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser —
                                                                                Urgency — None)
2.    The applicant shall pay its own costs and those incurred by                                      (2004/C 71/56)
      OHIM.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3.    The intervener shall pay its own costs.
                                                                           In Case T-339/03 R: Gabrielle Clotuche, official of the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.                                                  sels (Belgium), represented by P.-P. Van Gehuchten, G. Demez
                                                                           and J. Sambon, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Kraemer) — application,
                                                                           first, for stay of execution of the decision of 9 July 2003 to
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/30                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
reassign the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser at the                Pleas in law and main arguments
statistical office of the European Communities (Eurostat) and
of the decision of 1 October 2003 reorganising Eurostat and,
second, for the Commission to undertake the steps necessary                   Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
to enable the applicant to resume her functions as Director as                munity trade mark:
soon as possible — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 25 November 2003, the operative part of                      Community trade mark          The word and figurative mark
which is as follows:                                                          sought:                       ‘marmara’ for goods in Classes 29,
                                                                                30, 31, 32 and 33 (inter alia,
                                                                                meat, fish, poultry and game) —
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                                                      Application No 1 443 258.
                                                                              Proprietor of mark or         Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                     sign cited in the oppo-       Kooperatifleri Birligi.
                                                                              sition proceedings:
                                                                              Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark
                                                                              opposition:                   ‘MARMARABIRLIK’ for goods in
                                                                                Class 29 (inter alia, meat, fish,
                                                                                poultry and game) — Trade mark
                                                                                No 681 429.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Marmara                                 Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition.
Import-Export GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-                           sition Division:
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                               (OHIM)                                         Decision of the Board of      The decision of the Opposition
                                                                              Appeal:                       Division was annulled and the
                                                                                appeal allowed.
                           (Case T-403/03)
                                                                              Pleas in law:                 There is no likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion between the two marks
                            (2004/C 71/57)
                                                                                within     the      meaning      of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                           No 40/94.
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                          submitted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                       Action brought on 17 December 2003 by AMS Advanced
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                        Medical Services against the Office for Harmonisation in
15 December 2003 by Marmara Import-Export GmbH, Düssel-                         the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
dorf (Germany), represented by G. Rother and A. von
Arnswaldt, lawyers. Marmara Zeytin Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri
Birligi, Bursa (Turkey), was also a party to the proceedings                                           (Case T-425/03)
before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/58)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                                          submitted: German)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2003 (R 515/2002-1);
—     reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      before the Board of Appeal;                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                              17 December 2003 by AMS Advanced Medical Services,
—     stay proceedings until a decision has been given on the                 Mannheim (Germany), represented by G. Lindhofer, lawyer.
      application for a declaration of invalidity;                            American Medical Systems, Inc., Minnetonka (United States of
                                                                              America), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.                            of Appeal.


title: Case C-527/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to recover — Article 108(2) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 14(3) — Commission decision — Measures to be taken by the Member States)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-527/12) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation to recover - Article 108(2) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3) - Commission decision - Measures to be taken by the Member States))
   2014/C 409/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the State aid which was the subject of Commission Decision 2011/471/EU of 14 December 2010 on State aid granted by Germany to the Biria group (C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04)), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 108(2) TFEU, Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of [Article 108 TFEU], and Articles 1 to 3 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-369/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
8.12.2001             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Bundesfinanzh-            Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
of, by order of that court of 17 July 2001, in the case              Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and Logistik                  against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für
         against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen                      pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH on the
                                                                     following questions:
                         (Case C-337/01)
                                                                     1.   Are Articles 81 and 82 EC to be interpreted as precluding
                                                                          national rules under which national leading associations
                         (2001/C 348/18)                                  of statutory sickness insurance determine binding
                                                                          maximum amounts for all statutory sickness funds and
                                                                          compensatory sickness funds up to which the funds bear
                                                                          the costs of medicines, where the legislature defines the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    criteria by which the maximum amounts are to be
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      calculated, providing in particular that the fixed amounts
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 July 2001, received at the Court            must ensure comprehensive and quality-assured treat-
Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                ment of insured persons as well as an adequate range of
the case of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and                       therapeutic alternatives, and the determination is subject
Logistik against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, on the                   to comprehensive review by the courts, which may be
following question:                                                       initiated by both insured persons and affected medicinal
                                                                          product manufacturers?
Is there a removal from customs supervision of re-exported
                                                                     2.   If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
non-Community goods resulting in the incurring of a customs
debt under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1) solely by virtue of the fact that the goods                Does Article 86(2) EC exempt such a determination from
intended for re-export from the customs territory of the                  Articles 81 and 82 EC where the purpose of the
Community were not placed under the external transit pro-                 determination is to safeguard, in the manner provided for
cedure immediately on removal from the customs warehouse?                 in paragraph 35 SGB V, a sickness insurance scheme
                                                                          whose existence was endangered by a significant increase
                                                                          in costs?
(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                     3.   If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2
                                                                          in the negative:
                                                                          Are leading associations such as the defendants liable to
                                                                          claims under Community law for damages and an
                                                                          injunction even where in determining maximum amounts
                                                                          they follow a statutory direction, notwithstanding that
References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-                 national law does not impose any penalty for refusal to
shof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of               assist in the making of such a determination?
1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betrieb-
skrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenk-
assen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krank-
enkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V.,
6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundes-
knappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke
Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeuti-
     sche und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
               (Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01)                         gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                         (2001/C 348/19)
                                                                                (Case C-369/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                       (2001/C 348/20)
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichshof of
3 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 20 September
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. AOK
Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der          European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8.12.2001
(Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Registry on 25 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal         —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Labour Office) on the following question:                                      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
1.     Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-                comply fully with Council Directive 98/81/EC (1) of
       ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association                   26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on
       between the European Economic Community and Turkey                      the contained use of genetically modified micro-organ-
       to be interpreted as meaning:                                           isms, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
                                                                               gations under the EC Treaty;
       (a)  that a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction
            on the freedom to provide services which is contrary         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
            to the Additional Protocol and, if so,
       (b) that there is also a restriction on the freedom to
            provide services where a Member State of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
            Community abolishes an existing work permit
            exemption for Turkish drivers engaged in inter-
            national haulage who are employed by a (Turkish)             In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
            employer with its seat in Turkey?                            Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
                                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                         State to which they are addressed.
2.     Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom
       to provide services or does it also or solely concern
       conditions of access to employment within the meaning
       of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
       of the Association between the European Economic                  particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
       Community and Turkey?                                             of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
                                                                         of the Community.
3.     Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
       of the Association between the European Economic                  measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
       Community and Turkey also to be applied to Turkish
       employees of an employer with its seat in Turkey who,
       as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international           The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
       haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the             has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
       Community without belonging to the (legitimate) labour            ation of the Directive at issue into Greek law.
       force of that Member State?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 13.
Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                            ic Republic                                  Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                         (Case C-371/01)
                                                                                (Case C-375/01)
                         (2001/C 348/21)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/22)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Sep-              An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 September 2001
ties, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos           by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its           by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address for
Legal Service.                                                           service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2004 in Case C-97/04 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Failure to transpose)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 2 December 2004
   in Case C-97/04 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 19/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-97/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Amorosi and M. Konstantinidis) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, and G. Fiengo) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 February 2004 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular, Article 21(1) thereof.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2002.


title: Case T-63/09: Action brought on 17 February 2009 — Volkswagen AG v OHIM

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/22

         Action brought on 17 February 2009 — Volkswagen AG v OHIM
   (Case T-63/09)
   2009/C 102/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Suzuki Motor Corporation

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 in Case R-749/2007-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Suzuki Motor Corporation

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SWIFT GTi’ for goods in Class 12 (application No 3 456 084)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘GTI’ (No 39 406 386) and international word mark ‘GTI’ (No 717 592) for goods in Class 12

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 40/94, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case F-31/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Cwik v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Cwik v Commission
   (Case F-31/05) (1)

   (Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2007/C 96/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michael Cwik (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and J. Currall, agents)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of his Career Development Report drawn up in respect of the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003 and, as far as necessary, of the decision of 24 January 2005 rejecting his complaint against the 2003 CDR and, secondly, an order that the Commission of the European Communities pay token damages of EUR 1.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005 (Case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as case T-200/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


               2.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 150/13

         Action brought on 14 May 2009 by Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-6/09)
   2009/C 150/14
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 May 2009 by Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth and Peter Dyrberg, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Dronning Mauds gt 11, Oslo, NORWAY.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to act by not acting on the complaint lodged with the EFTA Surveillance Authority in August 2006 concerning State aid to newspapers;
               and

               2.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The applicant is the Norwegian Magazine Association.

               —

               The applicant contends that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to take a stand on the complaint within reasonable time, in violation of the duties incumbent upon it.

               —

               Article 37 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement reads as follows:

                  ‘Should the EFTA Surveillance Authority, in infringement of this Agreement or the provisions of the EEA Agreement, fail to act, an EFTA State may bring an action before the EFTA Court to have the infringement established.
                  The action shall be admissible only if the EFTA Surveillance Authority has first been called upon to act. If, within two months of being so called upon, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not defined its position, the action may be brought within a further period of two months.
                  Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the preceding paragraphs, complain to the EFTA Court that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to address to that person any decision’.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1997 in Case T-167/94 (92): Detlef Nölle v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/25
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Berrisch) and Commission of the European Communities
                    of 18 December 1997                              (Agents: Eric White and Claus-Michael Happe) Ð
                                                                     application for taxation of costs following the judgment of
in Case T-178/94: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas               the Court of 18 September 1995 in Case T-167/94: Nölle
  (ATM) v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                v. Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2589 Ð the
(State aid Ð Reduction in social charges Ð Closure of the            Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
file on the complaint Ð Interest in bringing proceedings             Composition), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,
                      Ð Inadmissibility)                             C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                         (98/C 55/51)                                12 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows:
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
In Case T-178/94: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas               applicant to the Council, including the costs incurred by
(ATM), established in Madrid, represented by Juan                    the parties for the purpose of the present proceedings, is
Eugenio Blanco Rodríguez and Bernardo Vicente                        fixed at DEM 20 000.
HernaÂndez Bataller, of the Madrid Bar and by Lydie
Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
                                                                     (1) OJ C 222, 18.8.1993.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ
SeÂreÂbriacoff, 11 rue Goethe, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: during the written
procedure initially by Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Diaz
and Michel Nolin, then by Francisco Santaolalla and
Michel Nolin, and during the oral procedure by Fernando
Castillo de la Torre) Ð application for annulment of the             Action brought on 17 September 1997 by Kurt Giegerich
Commission's decision, communicated to the Asociación                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Telefónica de Mutualistas by the Commission's letter                                       (Case T-253/97)
No D/30508 of 15 February 1994, to close the file on the
complaint lodged by that association objecting to the State                                   (98/C 55/53)
aid allegedly received by a public limited company,
CompanÄía Telefónica de EspanÄa SA Ð the Court of First                             (Language of the case: German)
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.             An action against the Commission of the European
Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and J. Pirrung, Judges; B.                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given        Instance of the European Communities on 17 September
a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:                         1997 by Kurt Giegerich, residing at Osmate/VA (Italy),
                                                                     represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef Rüber and
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                        Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay             Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
      those of the Commission.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 174, 25.6.1994.
                                                                     Ð annul the defendant's decision of 18 October 1996,
                                                                     Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                         compensation for the damage suffered by him as a
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               result of his not having been promoted to grade A 3
                                                                         with effect from 25 March 1991, in the form of a sum
                    of 12 December 1997                                  representing the difference between the levels of
in Case T-167/94 (92): Detlef Nölle v. Council of the                    remuneration payable to grade A 4 officials and
European Union and Commission of the European                            grade A 3 officials for the period from April 1991 to
                       Communities (1)                                   date, and declare, as regards the future, that an
                                                                         adjustment should be made to compensate for the
                      (Taxation of costs)
                                                                         corresponding damage arising from the receipt by the
                         (98/C 55/52)                                    applicant of a smaller pension and the possible receipt
                                                                         by his wife of a smaller widow's pension,
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Ð alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the
In Case T-167/94 (92): Detlef Nölle, trading as Eugen                   applicant compensation for the damage suffered by
Nölle', of Remscheid (Germany), represented by Frank                     him as a result of his not having been promoted to
Montag and Hans-Joachim Prieû, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels,                  grade A 3 with effect from 1 November 1995,
against Council of the European Union (Agents: Jorge                     covering his period of active employment and the
Monteiro, Jürgen Huber, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.                    period during which he is in receipt of his pension and