C 156/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  29.6.2002
The applicant asks the Court to:                                               Removal from the register of Case T-163/97 (1)
—     annul the decision taken by the Selection Board of
      Competition COM/A/7/01 on 11 February 2002 not to                                          (2002/C 156/70)
      correct the written test of the applicant and not to admit
      him to the tests subsequent to the written test;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
—     annul all the subsequent steps and measures taken in the
      competition procedure in question;
—     in the alternative, order the Commission to pay to the            By order of 10 April 2002 the President of the Third Chamber
      applicant EUR 100 000 as compensation for material                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      and non-material damage;                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-163/97:
                                                                        Nederlands Antillen v Council of the European Union and
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 12.07.1997.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case, the applicant is challenging the refusal by
the Selection Board in Open Competition COM/A/7/01 to
correct his written test and admit him to the subsequent tests.
The ground for that refusal is that the applicant is said to
have insufficient experience in the area of human resource
management.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-218/99 (1)
It is pointed out that the applicant was included on the list                                    (2002/C 156/71)
of candidates who fulfilled the general conditions of the
competition, he took part in the pre-selection tests, and was
admitted to the written test.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
In support of his application, the applicant claims that:
—     there was a manifest error of assessment in this case;            By order of 28 January 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-218/99: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of the
—     the obligation to state reasons has been infringed;               European Communities.
—     the principle of sound administration and the duty to
      have regard to the welfare of applicants have not been
      complied with.                                                    (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Action brought on 25 September 1997 by Società Camar s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Case T-260/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/35
  7 . The Disciplinary Board lacked independence as a                       refusal to take into account, in calculating Category B
       result of deferential fear and fear of reprisals against             licences, its normal reference quantity (which is that of
       the careers of its members. The applicant claims that                the three years immediately prior to the outbreak of
       there was an attempt to interfere with a witness's                   the war in Somalia ),
       deposition.
                                                                      — in the alternative, order the Council, pursuant to
  8 . Breach of the freedom of trade union activity and of                  Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
       the privileges of the staff committee and of the                     of the EC Treaty, to pay compensation to Camar in
       general assembly of the staff.                                       the event that the Court should decide that that
                                                                            institution is liable for not having adopted a specific
  9 . Misuse of powers.                                                     provision in Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 H allowing
                                                                            situations such as that of Camar to be resolved,
10. Breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch
       as there were no grounds for making the disciplinary           — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the
       measure more severe. In this regard, the applicant                   costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.
       points out that the disciplinary measure annulled in
       Case T-500/93 was deferment of advancement to a
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       higher step for two years, that the Disciplinary Board
       had proposed that the official be reprimanded and
       that one of the charges constituted actual                     The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-172/
       misconduct. In the present case, despite the fact that         97 Camar v. Commission (2), which involved proceedings,
       the misconduct relied on is manifestly non-existent            alleging failure to fulfil obligations, seeking that the non
       and that the Disciplinary Board delivered the                  member country licences normally allocated to it as a
       unanimous opinion that the official should be                  Category B operator should be quantified, not on the basis
       acquitted, the disciplinary measure was even more              of imports over the three-year period provided for under
       severe .                                                       Article 4 of Regulation No 1442/93 , but rather on the
                                                                      basis of imports over the years 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . The
                                                                      present application is directed against the express decision
                                                                      rejecting the applicant's request.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Action brought on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar                  already relied on in Case T- 172/97. Reference is made in
s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities                 particular to breach of Article 30 of the basic regulation in
                and Council of the European Union                     the banana sector ( Council Regulation No 404/93 ), breach
                         ( Case T-260/97)                             of the principle of non-discrimination and of the
                                                                      fundamental rights of traders, as well as to the existence
                           ( 97/C 357/65 )                            of abuse of power by reason of an erroneous assessment
                                                                      of assumptions of fact.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      (') OJ L 49 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ C 271 , 6 . 9 . 1997, p. 16 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar
s.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, assisted by
Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      Action brought on 2 October 1997 by 'D' against Council
Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                  of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-264/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/66 )
— annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
      Treaty, the Commission decision of 17 July 1997                                    (Language of the case: French)
      rejecting an application for transitional measures in
      favour of Camar under the tariff quota system for
      imports of bananas,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 2 October 1997 by 'D', represented by
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and                   Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and
      the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,           Fran^oise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
      to pay compensation for the damage which Camar has              for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
      suffered and will suffer as a result of the Commission's        Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 1998 in Case C-387/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Svea Hovrätt): criminal proceedings against Anders Sjöberg (Social legislation relating to road transport - Exception granted for vehicles used by public authorities to provide public services which are not in competition with professional road hauliers - Obligation on the driver to carry an extract from the duty roster)

text:
30.5.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 166/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  directive where it guarantees repayment of a debt
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                contracted by another person who, for his part, is acting
                                                                     within the course of his trade or profession.
                     of 17 March 1998
in Case C-45/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             (1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
   the Bundesgerichtshof): Bayerische Hypotheken- und
          Wechselbank AG v Edgar Dietzinger (1)
(Protection of the consumer in respect of contracts
  negotiated away from business premises Ð Guarantees)
                       (98/C 166/01)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
              (Language of the case: German)                                               of 17 March 1998
                                                                     in Case C-387/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Svea Hovrätt): criminal proceedings against Anders
         published in the European Court Reports)                                              Sjöberg (1)
                                                                     (Social legislation relating to road transport Ð Exception
In Case C-45/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            granted for vehicles used by public authorities to provide
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for              public services which are not in competition with
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               professional road hauliers Ð Obligation on the driver to
that court between Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechsel-                          carry an extract from the duty roster)
bank AG and Edgar Dietzinger Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                                (98/C 166/02)
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises (OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985,                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
p. 31) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M.
Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting for the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
President of the Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de                             published in the European Court Reports)
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón
(Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                     In Case C-387/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from Svea Hovrätt (the Svea Court of
given a judgment on 17 March 1998, in which it has
                                                                     Appeal), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
ruled:
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court against Anders
                                                                     Sjöberg Ð on the interpretation of Articles 13 and 14 of
On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 2 of         Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December
Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect                  1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from            relating to road transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1)
business premises, a contract of guarantee concluded by a            Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
natural person who is not acting in the course of his trade          President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
or profession does not come within the scope of the                  Almeida, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P.
 ---pagebreak--- C 166/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.5.98
LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                    Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Farming Limited Ð on the interpretation of Articles 34
17 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                and 36 of the EC Treaty and the validity of Council
                                                                     Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down
                                                                     minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ L 340
1. The exception in respect of vehicles used by public               of 11.12.1991, p. 28) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
    authorities to provide public services which are not in          Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
    competition with professional road hauliers, provided            Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
    for in Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)              Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.
    No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                            Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
    harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to          G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger,
    road transport, does not apply to vehicles belonging to          Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
    an undertaking which is wholly owned by a public                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1998, in
    authority and which operates a public passenger                  which it has ruled:
    service under a contract granting it an exclusive right
    for a specified period following a call for competing
    tenders.                                                         1. Consideration of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of
                                                                         19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards
                                                                         for the protection of calves has disclosed no factor of
                                                                         such a kind as to affect its validity.
2. The requirement in Article 14(5) of Regulation (EEC)
    No 3820/85, that each driver assigned to a service
    referred to in Article 14(1) must carry an extract from          2. A Member State which has implemented the 1988
    the duty roster and a copy of the service timetable, is              Recommendation concerning Cattle, drawn up to
    not satisfied where the extract from the duty roster                 apply the principles of the European Convention on
    relates only to the day on which it is checked.                      the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes,
                                                                         cannot rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty and, in
(1) OJ C 26 of 25.1.1997.                                                particular, on the grounds of public morality, public
                                                                         policy or the protection of the health or life of animals
                                                                         laid down in that article, in order to justify restrictions
                                                                         on the export of live calves with a view to preventing
                                                                         those calves from being reared in the veal crate
                                                                         systems used in other Member States which have
                                                                         implemented Directive 91/629/EEC but which do not
                                                                         apply that recommendation.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 19 March 1998                               (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.
in Case C-1/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
      parte Compassion in World Farming Limited (1)
(Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty Ð Directive 91/629/
EEC Ð European Convention on the Protection of                       Action brought on 2 March 1998 by the Commission of
Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Ð Recommendation                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
concerning Cattle Ð Export of calves from a Member                                             Netherlands
State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the
                                                                                (Case C-63/98)
Convention and the Recommendation Ð Export to
Member States which comply with the Directive but do                                         (98/C 166/04)
not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or
the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems
prohibited in the exporting State Ð Quantitative                     An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
restrictions on exports Ð Exhaustive harmonisation Ð                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                   Validity of the Directive)                        Communities on 2 March 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, represented by Wouter Wils,
                        (98/C 166/03)
                                                                     acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                     Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-1/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice (England
and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, for a preliminary                Ð declare that, by failing to take appropriate steps, in
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                      managing fishing for shellfish in the Waddenzee, to
between The Queen and the Minister of Agriculture,                       avoid deterioration of the habitats of certain types of


title: Case T-108/03: Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Elisabeth von Pezold against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 171/29
Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Elisabeth von                           limit, which favours undertakings of less than 20 hectares, also
Pezold against the Commission of the European Com-                         results in severe distortion of competition, in contravention of
                              munities                                     Article 35 of Regulation No 1257/1999 ( 1).
                         (Case T-108/03)                                   (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
                                                                                support for rural development from the European Agricultural
                                                                                Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
                                                                                repealing certain Regulations (OJ L 160, 26.06.1999, p. 80).
                         (2003/C 171/50)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Synopharm GmbH
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
European Communities on 24 March 2003 by Elisabeth von
Pezold, residing in Pöls (Austria), represented by R. von Pezold,                                     (Case T-120/03)
lawyer.
                                                                                (2003/C 171/51)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined in accordance with
                                                                           Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
—     annul the approval of point 6.2.1.4.1. of the guidelines                               application was submitted: German)
      on the implementation of the ‘other measures’ forming
      part of the Austrian rural development programm
      ZI.21.200/50-II/00 of 27 July 2000, C III in Section 6,
      headed ‘Forestry’, granted by the Commission decision of             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      14 July 2000 approving a rural development program-                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      ming document for the Republic of Austria for the period             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      from 2000 to 2006 (C(2000) 1973 final);                              10 April 2003 by Synopharm GmbH & Co. KG, Barsbüttel
                                                                           (Germany), represented by G. J. Hodapp, lawyer. Pentafarma-
                                                                           Sociedade Técnico-Medicinal, LDA, Sacavém (Portugal) was
—     in the alternative, if it finds that point 6.2.1.4.1. of those
                                                                           also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
      guidelines has not been approved by the Commission,
      deliver a judgment to that effect;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           —      annul Decision R 44/2002-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                                Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market of 15 January 2003 in so far as the appeal was
                                                                                dismissed;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —      order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant owns a forestry undertaking with forests cover-
ing approximately 3 500 hectares. She submits that                         Pleas in law and main arguments
point 6.2.1.4.1. of the Austrian guidelines on the implemen-
tation of the ‘rural development programm’ limits applications
for support for forests to a maximum of 20 hectares per                    Applicant for Com-               The applicant
undertaking, and that this limit was approved by the contested             munity trade mark:
decision.
                                                                           Community trade mark             The word mark ‘DERMASYN’ for
                                                                           sought:                          goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (inter
                                                                                alia, cosmetics, medicines, pharm-
As grounds for her action, the applicant submits that the                                                   aceutical and sanitary prep-
setting of a limit of 20 hectares constitutes support of                                                    arations and disinfectants for the
individual undertakings, rather than support of the forests per                                             human body) — Application No
se, as required by Regulation No 1257/1999. Moreover, the                                                   662 403


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of Regina against Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte: Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez (Case C-167/97)

text:
No C 181 /10         I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,            4 . When must this legal test be applied to a measure
by order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of                     adopted by a Member State ? In particular at which of
Regina against Secretary of State for Employment, ex                        the following points in time, or at what other point in
         parte: Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez                        time, must it be applied to the measure :
                        ( Case C-167/97)                                    ( a ) when the measure is adopted;
                          ( 97/C 181/18 )                                   ( b ) when the measure is brought into force;
                                                                            (c ) when the employee is dismissed ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               5 . What are the legal conditions for establishing the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                      objective justification, for the purposes of indirect
of 13 March 1997, which was received at the Court                           discrimination under Article              119, of a measure
Registry on 2 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                     adopted by a Member State in pursuance of its social
case of Regina against Secretary of State for Employment,                   policy ? In particular, what material need the Member
ex parte : Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez, on the                     State adduce in support of its grounds for
following questions :                                                       justification ?
1 . Does an award of compensation for breach of the                  (') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     right not to be unfairly dismissed under national                     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     legislation such as the Employment Protection                         and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     ( Consolidation ) Act 1978 constitute 'pay' within the                training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39,
     meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                             14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes\ do the conditions
     determining whether a worker has the right not to be
     unfairly dismissed fall within the scope of Article 119                       Removal from the register of C-3 17/96 (')
     or that of Directive 76/207/EEC (')?                                                           ( 97/C 181 / 19 )
3 . What is the legal test for establishing whether a                By order of 29 January 1997 the President of the Court of
     measure adopted by a Member State has such a degree             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     of disparate effect as between men an women as to               removal from the register of Case C-3 17/96 : Commission
     amount to indirect discrimination for the purposes of           of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
     Article 119 of the EC Treaty unless shown to be based
     upon objectively justified factors other than sex ?             ( 1 ) OJ No C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            represented by Michel Aurillac, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of 9 April 1997                             Charles Duro, 4 Boulevard Royal, against the Commission
in Case T-47/95 : Terres Rouges Consultant SA and Others             of the European Communities ( Agents : Theofanis
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )               Christoforou, Yves Renouf and Gerard Berscheid ),
                                                                     supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                      Arthur Brautigam and Jiirgen Huber ), the Kingdom of
Import arrangements — Framework Agreement on                         Spain ( Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) and the French
Bananas concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of                    Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal )
multilateral trade negotiations — Regulation (EC)                    — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
No 3224/94 — Community transitional measures for the                 ( EC ) No 3224/94 of 21 December 1994 laying down
implementation of the Framework Agreement — Action                   transitional measures for the implementation of the
                for annulment — Inadmissibility)                     Framework Agreement on Bananas concluded as part of
                                                                     the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations ( OJ
                          ( 97/C 181/20 )                            No L 337, 1994, p. 72 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:
                                                                     K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and
                 (Language of the case: French)                      M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 1997, in which
                                                                     it :
In Case T-47/95 : Terres Rouges Consultant SA, established
in Paris, Cobana Import Sari, established in Rungis
( France ), SIPEF NV, established in Antwerp ( Belgium ),            1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;


title: Case C-30/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Adrian Ilaș v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Suceava (Romania) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Adrian Ilaș v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-30/11)
   2011/C 113/09
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adrian Ilaș

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Suceava — Administrația Finanțelor Publice Suceava, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as subsequently amended and supplemented, which is levied upon the first registration in Romania of second-hand imported motor vehicles which have previously been registered in other Member States, account being taken of the fact that that tax is not applied to second-hand motor vehicles registered in Romania where they are the object of certain transactions and are re-registered?

               2.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), which is intended to eliminate factors liable to protect the national market and to breach the principles of competition, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in Romania of second-hand imported motor vehicles which have previously been registered in other Member States, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, and all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4, which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State of the European Union between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009 inclusive, that is to say, for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania, thus favouring the domestic motor vehicle manufacturing industry?


title: Case T-567/08 P: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Decision not to promote the applicant in the 2005 promotion year — Appeal partly inadmissible and partly unfounded)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/38

         Order of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-567/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Decision not to promote the applicant in the 2005 promotion year - Appeal partly inadmissible and partly unfounded)
   2010/C 37/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Steiner and G. Corstens, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bart Nijs to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Union in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-316/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 31(2) — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Notion of ‘worker’ — Handicapped person — Right to paid annual leave — National rules contrary to EU law — Role of the national court)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Gérard Fenoll v Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon
   (Case C-316/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31(2) - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Notion of ‘worker’ - Handicapped person - Right to paid annual leave - National rules contrary to EU law - Role of the national court))
   (2015/C 171/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gérard Fenoll

      Defendants: Centre d'aide par le travail ‘La Jouvene’, Association de parents et d'amis de personnes handicapées mentales (APEI) d'Avignon

      Operative part of the judgment

   The notion of ‘worker’, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time and of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it may cover a person admitted to an employment rehabilitation centre such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case C-365/12 P: Appeal brought on 31 July 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG v European Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/29

         Appeal brought on 31 July 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG v European Commission
   (Case C-365/12 P)
   2012/C 287/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Kingdom of Sweden, Siemens AG, ABB Ltd

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08;

               2.

               dismiss the application in Case T-344/08;

               3.

               order the respondent and the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the appellant, the General Court failed to have regard to the need for the harmonious interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘Transparency Regulation’), (1) as established in the landmark rulings in Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, (2)
      API, (3) and Bavarian Lager, (4) and recently confirmed in Agrofert
       (5) and Odile Jacob, (6) and instead gave priority to the right of access under the Transparency Regulation, thereby erring in law. The General Court’s interpretation of the right of access under the Transparency Regulation, or of the relevant exceptions, undermines the system of consultation of the file that exists under cartel law, and the balancing of interests to be found therein, that is the balance between the Commission’s interest in the effective implementation of the task conferred on it under Article 108 TFEU, on the one hand, and the interest of undertakings in the effective protection of information submitted by them in the context of cartel proceedings, on the other.
   The General Court wrongly declined to apply to the present case the general presumption — established in particular in Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau and confirmed in Odile Jacob — that documents in the administrative file merit protection. In so doing, the General Court failed to have regard to the fact that such a general presumption is justified by the system of consultation of the file that exists under cartel law, but also by the restriction under cartel law on the use of documents obtained in the course of an investigation.
   The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the exception designed to protect the purpose of investigations, under the third indent of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation. It wrongly limited the scope of application of that exception to the completion of specific inspections. It failed to have regard to the fact that the purpose of investigations extends not only to the effectiveness of individual inspections (at any rate until the decision closing the particular proceedings becomes final), but also to the effectiveness of the Commission’s enforcement powers in the field of cartel law generally (including the safeguards associated with the rule of law that are applicable here).
   The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the exception designed to protect commercial interests, under the first indent of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation. It wrongly limited the scope of application essentially to the protection of business secrets. It failed to have regard to the fact that such protection extends also to confidential information submitted to the Commission solely in the context of investigations of particular undertakings and which would not otherwise have been made available to third parties.
   The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the exception designed to protect the Commission’s decision-making process, under the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation. It failed to have regard to the fact that the Commission is empowered to refuse to grant access to internal documents containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations on the ground that their publication might restrict the Commission’s scope for taking decisions in the event of a resumption of the proceedings. In finding that the Commission should not have refused access to internal documents, the General Court also failed to have regard to the fact that internal documents are in any event also covered by the exceptions in Article 4 of the Transparency Regulation, and by the presumption — which to that extent is recognised by the General Court — that they merit protection.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

      (2)  Case C-139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau [2010] ECR I-5885.

      (3)  Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P Sweden and Others v API and Commission [2010] ECR I-8533.

      (4)  Case C-28/08 P Commission v Bavarian Lager [2010] ECR I-6055.

      (5)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 June 2012 in Case C-477/10 P Agrofert Holding v Commission.

      (6)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 June 2012 in Case C-404/10 P Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob.


title: Case F-56/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission
   (Case F-56/13) (1)

   (2016/C 136/71)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 29.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 1999 in Case C-61/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie): De Haan Beheer BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam (Customs duties - External transit - Fraud - Incurrence and recovery of a customs debt)

text:
C 352/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.12.1999
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court,                     of: J.-P. Puissochet, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,          J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers),               M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-              Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 1999, in
nemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate Gen-                  which it has ruled:
eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 September 1999, in which it has ruled:                       The concept of existing legislation, within the meaning of Article 70
                                                                           of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added           founded, covers provisions adopted after the date of accession which
tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that      are in substance identical to the legislation previously in force or
the terms ‘other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature’       limited to reducing or eliminating an obstacle to the exercise of
and ‘other organisations recognised as charitable by the Member            Community rights and freedoms in the earlier legislation.
State concerned’, which appear in subparagraphs (b) and (g) of that
provision respectively, do not exclude from that exemption natural
persons running a business.                                                (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 September 1999
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-61/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       of 7 September 1999                                 the Tariefcommissie): De Haan Beheer BV v Inspecteur
                                                                                der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam (1)
in Case C-355/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundverkehrsreferent                     (Customs duties — External transit — Fraud — Incurrence
der Tiroler Landesregierung v Beck Liegenschaftsverwal-                                      and recovery of a customs debt)
    tungsgesellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/04)
(Article 70 of the Act of Accession of Austria — Secondary
residences — Procedure relating to the acquisition of immov-
able property in the Tyrol — Concept of ’existing legislation’)                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (1999/C 352/03)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In Case C-61/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tariefcommissie
                                                                           (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     pending before that court between De Haan Beheer BV and
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam on
                                                                           the interpretation of Community law relating to the incurrence
In Case C-355/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of              and recovery of a customs debt — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberster Gerichtshof             composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
(Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
before that court between Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                  M. Wathelet, (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-
Tiroler Landesregierung and Beck Liegenschaftsverwaltungsge-               eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
sellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH, in liquidation,                     judgment on 7 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
(Intervener, Karl Hacker) — on the interpretation of Article 70
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                   1. Community law does not impose on customs authorities which
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom                    have been informed of a possible fraud in connection with
of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the                      external transit arrangements any obligation to warn a principal
European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ                         that he could incur liability for customs duty as a result of the
1995 L 1, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                           fraud, even where he has acted in good faith.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 352/3
2. The demands of an investigation conducted by the national                1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to
     authorities may, in the absence of any deception or negligence on          give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration,
     the part of the person liable, and where that person has not been          notwithstanding that technical, economic and organisational
     informed that the investigation is being carried out, constitute a         constraints so allowed, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     special situation within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Council           failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council
     Regulation (EEC) 1430/79 of 3 July 1979 on the repayment                   Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of
     or remission of import or export duties, as amended by Council             waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of
     Regulation (EEC) No 3069/86 of 7 October 1986, where the                   22 December 1986;
     fact that the national authorities have, in the interests of the
     investigation, deliberately allowed offences or irregularities to be   2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
     committed, thus causing the principal to incur a customs debt,
     places the principal in an exceptional situation in comparison
     with other operators engaged in the same business.                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
3. Commission Decision C(98) 372 of 18 February 1998 is
     invalid.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-217/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                        of 9 September 1999                                             ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
in Case C-102/97 Commission of the European Communi-
              ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                            90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the
                                                                            environment — Definition of public authorities — Exclusion
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                of the courts, criminal prosecution authorities and disciplin-
87/101/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Transposition of                      ary authorities — Partial communication of information —
                              the directive)                                Exclusion of the right to information during administrative
                                                                            proceedings — Amount of charges and mode of collecting
                            (1999/C 352/05)                                                                them)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                   (1999/C 352/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: German)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-102/97: Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany                                         in the European Court Reports)
(Agents: initially Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke, and, sub-
sequently, Ernst Röder and Claus-Dieter Quassowski) —
Application for a declaration that, by failing to give priority to          In Case C-217/97: Commission of the European Communities
the recycling, rather than the thermal processing, of waste oils,           (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
notwithstanding that such processing is not precluded by any                (Agent: Ernst Röder, assisted by Dieter Sellner) — application
economic, technical or organisational constraints, the Federal              for a declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975                90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to
on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as                    information on the environment (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56), in
amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December                      particular Article 2(b), Article 3(2), third indent of the first
1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                     subparagraph and second subparagraph, and Article 5 thereof
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                    — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
P. Jann, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and               President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen (Rappor-
M. Wathelet, Judges, N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louter-              teur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
given a judgment on 9 September 1999, in which it:                          9 September 1999, in which it held:


title: Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-220/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 269/5
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) on the approximation
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                            of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                         ( Case C-2 19/96 )                                     relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of
                                                                                dangerous substances, or by not communicating those
                            ( 96/C 269/ 11 )
                                                                                measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                  in Case C-196/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive
Kirchberg .                                                              expired on 30 October 1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             (') OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 113 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws , regulations and               ( 3 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 4 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 93/86/EEC ( ') of 4 October 1993
      adapting to technical progress Council Directive
      91 / 157/EEC ( 2 ) on batteries and accumulators
      containing certain dangerous substances, or by not
      communicating those measures, the Kingdom of
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the
      Directive ,
                                                                          European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Case C-221 /96 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                                                    ( 96/C 269/ 13 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive           Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
expired on 31 December 1993 .                                            Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
(') OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51                                Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service , Wagner Centre ,
(-) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                Kirchberg.
( 5 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (') of 20 July 1993
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                            and    the   environment      of    substances   notified in
                          ( Case C-220/96 )                                     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ), or
                             ( 96/C 269/ 12 )                                   by not communicating those measures , the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                first-mentioned Directive ,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                           — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service , Wagner Centre,                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Kirchberg.                                                                in Case C-205/96 ( ? ); the period prescribed by the Directive
                                                                          expired on 31 October 1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          (') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 ( 2 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p. 7 .
      Commission Directive 92/69/EEC (') of 31 July 1992
      adapting to technical progress for the 7th time


title: Case C-100/00: Action brought on 16 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 149/26               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hovrätten för               Action brought on 16 March 2000 by the Commission of
Västra Sverige by order of 10 March 2000 in the case of                 the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Kenny Roland Lyckeskog against Public Prosecutor’s
                        Office, Uddevalla
                                                                                (Case C-100/00)
                          (Case C-99/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/48)
                         (2000/C 149/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
European Communities by order of 10 March 2000 by the                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March
Hovrätten för Västra Sverige, which was received at the Court         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Registry on 16 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling on the            represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
following questions:                                                  and Giacinto Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to
                                                                      the Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
1. Is a national court or tribunal which in practice is the last      Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    instance in a case, because leave to appeal is needed in
    order for the case to be reviewed by the country’s supreme
    court, a court or tribunal within the meaning of the third
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
    paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty?
2. May a court or tribunal within the meaning of the third            — Declare that, by making immersion heaters subject to
    paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty decline to                  safety requirements not provided for by Directive
    request a preliminary ruling where it considers it clear how          73/23/EEC (1) and, consequently, by rejecting, in the case
    the questions of Community law in point must be decided,              of products manufactured in accordance with Standard EN
    even if those questions are not covered by the doctrine of            60335-2-21, the presumption of conformity with safety
    acte clair or acte éclairé?                                           requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Community law;
    In the event that the Court of Justice answers the first
    question in the negative, or the first question in the            — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-
    affirmative and the second question in the negative but not           ings.
    otherwise — the Hovrätten also wishes to have an answer
    to the following questions:
3. Under Article 45 of Council Regulation (EEC)                       Pleas in law and main arguments
    No 918/83(1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community
    system of reliefs from customs duty, subject to Articles 46
    to 49 of the regulation, goods contained in the personal          Article 9 of Directive 73/23/EEC embodies the so-called
    luggage of travellers coming from a third country are to be       safeguard clause which allows Member States to adopt restric-
    admitted free of import duties, provided that such imports        tive measures for reasons of safety even with respect to
    are of a non-commercial nature. Does this mean that the           products manufactured in conformity with a harmonised
    nature and quantity of the goods should, on an objective          standard. However, such measures must be justified by factual
    view, not be such as to raise doubts about the nature of          evidence that the products in question, albeit manufactured
    the import? Or may regard be had to the individual’s life         in conformity with a harmonised standard, are likely to
    style and customs?                                                compromise the safety of users. In the absence of such
                                                                      evidence, or in the absence of a formal communication
4. What is the legal significance of a national authority’s           in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 73/23/EEC, the
    provisions which indicate the duty-free quantity of a             Commission maintains that immersion heaters which are in
    certain product — to which Council Regulation (EEC)               conformity with Standard EN 60335-2-21 must be freely
    No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community                 released on the market without being made subject to
    system of reliefs from customs duty is applicable —               additional requirements.
    normally to be admitted?
                                                                      (1) OJ L 77 of 26.3.1973, p. 29.
(1) OJ L 105 of 23.4.83, p. 1.


title: Case C-547/07: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/52

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-547/07) (1)

   2009/C 267/86

      Language of the case: Polish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-620/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)
   (Case C-620/15)
   (2016/C 048/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH

      Respondents: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)

      Question referred

   Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Articles 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to the members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, where it is found that the conditions under which the employee carries out his activity clearly do not fall within the material scope of the exceptions set out in Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.


title: Case C-514/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, by decision of that court of 30 November 2004, in the case of Uroplasty B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane District Rotterdam

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, by decision of that court of 30 November 2004, in the case of Uroplasty B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane District Rotterdam

   (Case C-514/04)
   (2005/C 57/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands) of 30 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 15 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Uroplasty B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane District Rotterdam on the following questions:

               1.

                           (a)

                           Must heading 9021 of the CCT be interpreted as meaning that a product consisting of sterile, white flakes of polydimethylsiloxane, specially developed and intended solely for use as a medical/surgical implant, can be classified under that heading?

                           (b)

                           If so, under which subheading of heading 9021 of the CCT must the product be classified?

               2.

               If heading 9021 is not possible in this case, is the product eligible for classification under heading 3926 of the CCT?

               3.

               If not, classification under which other heading results from the interpretation of the CCT?


               25.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 334/30

         Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-12/14)
   (2014/C 334/11)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 3 September 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 3 July 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-433/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/14

         Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-433/11)
   2011/C 290/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing that decision (and, in particular, Council Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011, which provides for the applicant to be included on the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/273/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing it (namely, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 and the corrigendum thereto), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), and by Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the applicant complains that the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the contested measures restrict the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular his right to property, provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, his freedom to engage in work and conduct his business provided for in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, lastly, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union


title: Case C-102/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2014 by Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/25

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2014 by Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission
   (Case C-102/14 P)
   2014/C 135/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, S.A. (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2014 in Case T-134/12 regarding the inadmissibility of the application for annulment

               —

               In the alternative, set aside one or more parts of that order

                           —

                           Set aside the order regarding the aid received in respect of the projects listed on the first page of the application for annulment, and

                           —

                           Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of project Bey Watch, and

                           —

                           Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of project Indect, and

                           —

                           Set aside the order regarding the inadmissibility of the claims for damages in respect of the other projects

               —

               Refer the case in its entirety back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of the case

               —

               In the alternative, refer such part or parts as the Court sees fit to the General Court for a ruling on the merits of that part or those parts

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those in Case T-134/12 as well in so far as the same grounds are concerned.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Error of fact by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal, in that it did not take into account any of the documents submitted by the appellant in its application. In the appellant’s opinion, the General Court disregarded facts, omissions and documents of great relevance to the reasoning in the order.

      Error of law by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal, in that it held that only proceedings under Article 272 TFEU were viable, and not proceedings under Article 263 TFEU.

      Error of law by the General Court, in that it did not assess the Commission’s part in the error into which the appellant was led as to the fact that the debit notes constituted a definitive act in the Commission’s exercise of its own powers and were, therefore, an actionable measure. Breach by the General Court of the principle of equality and non-discrimination under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      Error of law by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal, in that it did not take into account the facts, omissions and documents referred to in the initial headings in the notice of appeal.

      Error of law by the General Court in the assessment of the lack of reasoning and of the Commission’s failure even to make any observations on many of the submissions made by the appellant in its application for annulment.

      Error of fact and law by the General Court in relation to the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal as to the inadmissibility of the claim for damages in respect of project Bey Watch, which call in question its viability. The appellant claims that the appropriateness of the claim for non-contractual liability is established and that all the requirements under European Union case-law for that liability to be incurred have been satisfied.

      Error of law by the General Court regarding the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal as to the inadmissibility of the claim for damages in respect of project Indect, in that it held that the only action that would lie was an action for contractual liability when, under European Union case-law, an action for non-contractual liability is the only possible means of establishing liability for a failure to state reasons by the Commission.

      Error of fact and law by the General Court regarding the assessment of the evidence in the order under appeal as to the inadmissibility of the claim for damages in respect of the other projects, in so far as the General Court went beyond its jurisdiction and acted of its own motion.


title: Case F-61/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Stepien and Animali v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Stepien and Animali v Commission
   (Case F-61/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 410/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Beata Stepien (Brussels, Belgium) and Mario Animali (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and, lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Baquero Cruz and D. Martin, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, subsequently G. Gattinara, Agent, lastly G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the proposals to transfer the pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission on the basis of a calculation which takes into account the new GIP entering into force after the applicants had submitted their requests to transfer their pension rights.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Beata Stepien and Mr Mario Animali shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28/7/2012, p. 38.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2005 in Case T-375/02 Alessandro Cavallaro v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Decision of the selection board not to admit a candidate to the oral tests in consequence of the result obtained in the written test — Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board — Statement of reasons — Equal treatment — Error of fact)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 June 2005
   in Case T-375/02 Alessandro Cavallaro v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Decision of the selection board not to admit a candidate to the oral tests in consequence of the result obtained in the written test - Secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board - Statement of reasons - Equal treatment - Error of fact)
   (2005/C 193/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-375/02: Alessandro Cavallaro, residing in Rome (Italy), represented by C. Forte, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 11 September 2002 rejecting the applicant's complaint lodged against the decision of the selection board in Open Competition COM/A/6/01 of 15 May 2002 to give him an insufficient mark for the written test in that competition and, in consequence, not to admit him to the oral tests, and for annulment of the subsequent stages of that competition, in so far as is necessary to restore his rights — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; M.J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case T-91/09 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/32

         Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission
   (Case T-91/09 P)
   2009/C 102/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered on 15 December 2008 by the European Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/07;

               —

               allow the pleadings seeking the setting aside of that judgment and compensation submitted by the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 15 December 2008 delivered in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission dismissing the action by which the appellant sought, firstly, annulment of her career development report for 2005 and, secondly, damages.
   In support of her appeal, the appellant raises three pleas alleging an error of legal characterisation of the facts, a failure correctly to apply Article 5 of the general implementing provisions and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and a failure to state reasons, since the CST ruled that it could not be said that the Commission had not carried out an assessment of the appellant for the period from January to September 2005, despite the fact that the appellant’s career development report for 2005 was, almost word for word, merely a virtually identical copy of the appellant’s career development report for 2004.


title: Case C-483/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Albini & Pitigliani SpA

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/24

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Albini & Pitigliani SpA
   (Case C-483/15) (1)

   (2016/C 279/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.