title: Case C-666/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Rohm Semiconductor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Rohm Semiconductor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Case C-666/13)
   2014/C 85/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rohm Semiconductor GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

      Questions referred
       (1)

               1.

               Does the fact that goods have an individual function within the meaning of heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature mean that they may not be classified in heading 8541, despite their assembly?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In what circumstances are transmitter/receiver modules of the type described in more detail in the grounds, which have an individual function within the meaning of heading 8543, to be regarded as parts of machines or apparatus in heading 8543?

      (1)  Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1).


20150731006616582015/C 270/07292014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506116611Case C-29/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Directive 2006/17/EC — Directive 2006/86/EC — Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN610120150611EN00076161Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-29/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Directive 2006/17/EC — Directive 2006/86/EC — Exclusion of reproductive cells, foetal tissues and embryonic tissues from the scope of national legislation transposing those directives)’2015/C 270/07Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Gheorghiu and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, under Articles 3(b), 4(2) and 7 of, and Annex III to, Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, and under Article 11 of Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, by excluding reproductive cells and foetal and embryonic tissue from the scope of the provisions of national law transposing those directives;

            2.

            Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-437/11: Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/22

         Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)
   (Case T-437/11)
   2011/C 298/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and S. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2011 in case R 1310/2010-1, in so far as it held that the appeal before the Board of Appeal was successful in respect of goods in class 16; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal, or alternatively, order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ for goods in classes 9, 21 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 6324164

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4226148 of the word mark ‘BALLON D’OR’, for amongst others goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 25 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and partially accepted the opposition and the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there is a perceived conflict between the Community trade mark application and the earlier mark.


title: Case T-383/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Beamglow v Parliament and Others (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Beamglow v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-383/00) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects - Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions - Causal link - Unusual and special damage)
   (2006/C 48/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Beamglow Ltd (St Ives, Cambridgeshire (United Kingdom)) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos and K. Bradley, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by S. Marquardt and M. Bishop, acting as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by P. Kuijper, C. Brown and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently by E. Braquehais Conesa, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on imports of the applicant's boxes made of printed and decorated paperboard, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Parliament;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;

               3)

               Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

               4)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61 of 24. 2. 2001.


title: Case C-263/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Decision 2014/198/CFSP — Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania — Choice of legal basis — Obligation to inform the European Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of the procedure of negotiation and conclusion of international agreements — Maintenance of the effects of the decision in the event of annulment)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-263/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Decision 2014/198/CFSP - Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania - Choice of legal basis - Obligation to inform the European Parliament immediately and fully at all stages of the procedure of negotiation and conclusion of international agreements - Maintenance of the effects of the decision in the event of annulment))
   (2016/C 305/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola and M. Allik, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, R. Troosters and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert, G. Étienne, M. Bishop and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, E. Ruffer, J. Vláčil, J. Škeřik and M. Hedvábná, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, M. Rhodin, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, and by G. Facenna, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signature and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2014/198 be maintained in force;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Commission, each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-292/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Appeal — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Claim for payment — Repeal of the national legislation which gave rise to the failure to fulfil obligations — Assessment by the Commission of the measures adopted by the Member State to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice — Limits — Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-292/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Claim for payment - Repeal of the national legislation which gave rise to the failure to fulfil obligations - Assessment by the Commission of the measures adopted by the Member State to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice - Limits - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the General Court)
   2014/C 85/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and J. Arsénio de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the other party to the proceedings: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by A. Samoni-Bantou and I. Pouli, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, A. Adam, J. Rossi and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2011 in Case T-33/09 Portugal v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008 — Request that the Portuguese Republic should make the penalty payments due in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-1.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Portuguese Republic in the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-188/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Peter Hehenberger v Republik Österreich (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 817/2004 — Financial support for agri-environmental production methods — Checks — Beneficiary of agricultural aid — Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out — National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years — Whether compatible)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/3

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Peter Hehenberger v Republik Österreich
   (Case C-188/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 817/2004 - Financial support for agri-environmental production methods - Checks - Beneficiary of agricultural aid - Fact of having prevented an on-the-spot check from being carried out - National legislation requiring the repayment of all aid paid over several years - Whether compatible)
   2012/C 200/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

      Defendant: Republik Österreich

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of 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 1999 L 160, p. 80) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of said Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) — Checks and penalties — Legislation of a Member State requiring, in the event that a recipient of agricultural support prevents a check, repayment of all support received over a period of 5 years — Proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   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, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999, does not preclude national rules which provide that, where a farmer who is the beneficiary of financial support prevents an on-the-spot check of the land concerned, all the support already granted during the commitment period to that farmer in relation to an agri-environmental measure must be repaid, even where it has already been paid in respect of a number of years.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-216/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa/Commission

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/31

         Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa/Commission
   (Case T-216/15)
   (2015/C 262/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dôvera zdravotná poist'ovňa, s.a. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a. s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a. s. (VZP) (notified under document C(2014) 7277) (OJ 2015 L 41, p. 25);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a misapplication of Article 107 (1) TFEU

                           —

                           The Commission has erred in law by misapplying the concept of undertaking in the specific context of Article 107 (1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment

                           —

                           The Commission has, in setting and applying the criteria to determine the economic nature of the insurance scheme, committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in finding that SZP/VZP does not qualify as an undertaking and failed to provide adequate reasoning.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 15 February 1996 in Case C-53/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail, Tournai): Inasti v. Hans Kemmler (Freedom of establishment - Social security for self-employed persons working in two Member States)

text:
 No C 133 /6           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Michel
                        (Third Chamber )                              Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the Kingdom of the
                                                                      Netherlands ( Agents : Jaap de Zwaan and Ton Heukels ) —
                      of 15 February 1996                             application for annulment of the Commission's decision
 in Case C-53/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty , addressed on
 by the Tribunal du Travail, Tournai ): Inasti v. Hans                29 December 1992 to other Member States and other
                             Kemmler ( 1 )                            parties concerned, regarding a preferential tariff system
  (Freedom of establishment — Social security for                     applied in the Netherlands for supplies of natural gas to
    self-employed persons working in two Member States)               Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers ( OJ No C 344 , 1992 , p . 4 )
                                                                      — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O.
                            96/C 133/ 10
                                                                      Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                      Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevón ,
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                      Judges ; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-
                                                                      Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be        judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       1 , dismisses the application;
 In Case C-53/95 — reference by the Tribunal du Travail
 ( Labour Tribunal ), Tournai , for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Inasti                  2 , orders the applicant to pay the costs;
 ( Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
Indépendants — National Social Insurance Institution
                                                                      3,   orders the intervener to bear its own costs .
for Self-employed Persons ) and Hans Kemmler, on the
interpretation of Articles 48 , 51 , 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty
— the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of J. P. Puissochet           (') OJ No C 88 , 30 . 3 . 1993 .
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate-General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment
on 15 February 19 96 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
Article 52 of the EC Treaty precludes a Member State from
requiring contributions to be made to the social security                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
scheme for self-employed persons by persons already                                            ( Fifth Chamber )
working as self-employed persons in another Member State
where they have their habitual residence and are affiliated to                             of 29 February 1996
a social security scheme, that obligation affording them no          in Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 : French Republic
additional social security cover.                                    v. Commission of the European Communities and Ireland
                                                                            v. Commission of the European Communities (')
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                     (Common organization of the market in beef and veal —
                                                                                Conditions for intervention)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/ 12 )
                                                                      (Languages of the cases: C-296/93 : French; C-307/93 :
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                English)
                        ( Fifth Chamber )
                     of 29 February 1996                              (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
in Case C-56/93 : Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission of the                      published in the European Court Reports)
                   European Communities ( 1 )
(State aid — Preferential tariffsystem for supplies ofnatural        In Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 : French Republic
            gas to Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers)               ( Agents : Philippe Pouzoulet, Catherine de Salins and
                          ( 961C 133/ 11 )                           Jean-Louis Falconi ) v . Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Gérard Rozet and Christopher
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Docksey ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland ( Agent: John D. Colahan, assisted by :
                                                                     Eleanor Sharpston, Barrister ) and Ireland ( Agent : Michael
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         A. Buckley, assisted by : James O'Reilly SC, and Richard
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Law Nesbitt, Barrister-at-Law ) v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities                ( Agents : Gérard Rozet,
In Case C-56/93 : Kingdom of Belgium ( Agent : Jan                   Christopher Docksey and Hans Gerald Crossland ),
Devadder, assisted by Claude A. Gonthier, Avocat ) v .               supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and


title: Case C-524/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 296 to 298 — Common flat-rate scheme for farmers — Flat-rate compensation percentage set at nil rate)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-524/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 296 to 298 - Common flat-rate scheme for farmers - Flat-rate compensation percentage set at nil rate)
   2012/C 126/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 296 to 298 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Flat-rate scheme designed to offset the VAT levied on the purchases of goods and services by flat-rate farmers — Flat-rate compensation percentage set at nil rate

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by applying to farmers a special scheme which does not comply with the scheme established by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, because it exempts farmers from payment of value added tax and involves the application of a flat-rate compensation percentage at a nil rate, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 296 to 298 of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-281/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 June 2006 — Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 June 2006 — Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg
   (Case C-281/06)
   (2006/C 224/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hans-Dieter and Hedwig Jundt

      Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49 EC) to be interpreted as including within its scope also spare-time teaching activity for or on behalf of a public law legal person (a university) where only an expense allowance is paid for that activity, as being an activity in a quasi-honorary capacity?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the restriction on freedom to provide services whereby allowances are taxed favourably only if they are paid by national public law legal persons (here, Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Income Tax Law)) justified by the fact that the State tax concession applies only where the activity is for the benefit of a national public law legal person?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, is Article 126 of the EC Treaty (now Article 149 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of tax law designed to help supplement the organisation of the education system (such as Paragraph 3(26) of the Einkommensteuergesetz, here) is lawful in the light of the fact that the Member States continue to have responsibility in that regard?


title: Case C-99/03: Action brought on 4 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 101/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by the Commission of                       — Prima sezione penale (Milan District Court, First Criminal
          the European Communities against Ireland                        Chamber) of 26 November 2002, received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                            (Case C-99/03)                                criminal proceedings against Alfonso Galeazzo and Marco
                                                                          Benatti on the following questions:
                           (2003/C 101/47)
                                                                          1.    Does Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC ( 1) on co-ordi-
                                                                                nation of safeguards which, for the protection of the
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       interests of members and others, are required by Member
Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2003 by the                      States of companies within the meaning of the second
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                          paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view
James Flett, acting as agent, with an address for service in                    to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
Luxembourg.                                                                     Community concern not only cases of failure to publish
                                                                                the balance sheet and profit and loss account, but also
                                                                                cases where those documents are published but their
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     contents are false, given that the harm to the interests of
                                                                                members and third parties is clearly greater in the latter
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                   case? Is the directive intended in that respect to lay down
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    a minimum level of protection at Community level
      Directive 2000/52/EC of the Commission of 26 July                         leaving it to the Member States to put in place means of
      2000 amending Directive 80/723/EC on the transparency                     protection against the submitting of false balance sheets
      of financial relations between Member States and public                   or the publishing of false company accounts?
      undertakings ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
      cate them forthwith to the Commission, Ireland has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and the Directive;       2.    Do the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and
                                                                                dissuasiveness, which the penalties to be adopted by the
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           Member States under Council Directive 68/151 must
                                                                                satisfy in order to be regarded as appropriate, refer to the
                                                                                nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or
                                                                                rather to its application in practice having regard to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 structural characteristics of the legal system within which
                                                                                it takes effect?
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the             3.    Are the principles set out in Council Directive 78/660/
period for compliance laid down in the directive. When that                     EEC (2) of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the
period expired on 31 July 2001 Ireland had failed to adopt the                  Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of
measures necessary to comply with the directive referred to in                  companies, Council Directive 83/349/EEC (3) of 13 June
the conclusions of the Commission, or in any event had failed                   1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consoli-
to inform the Commission of such measures.                                      dated accounts and Council Directive 90/605/EEC (4) of
                                                                                8 November 1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on
                                                                                annual accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consoli-
( 1) OJ L 193 of 29.7.2000, p. 75.                                              dated accounts as regards the scope of those directives,
                                                                                upon which national measures relating to the drafting
                                                                                and contents of annual accounts and annual reports, in
                                                                                particular, of capital companies, must be based, to be
                                                                                interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting
                                                                                minimum thresholds below which inaccurate statements
                                                                                in annual accounts and annual reports relating to com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          panies limited by shares, partnerships limited by shares
Milano — Prima sezione penale by order of that Court of                         and limited liability companies are not punishable?
26 November 2002 in the criminal proceedings against
             Alfonso Galeazzo and Marco Benatti
                           (Case C-101/03)                                (1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                          (3 ) OJ 1983 L 193, p. 1.
                           (2003/C 101/48)                                (4 ) OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano


title: Case C-317/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/25

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-317/06)
   (2006/C 212/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/14/EC into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29.


title: Case T-483/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (Affiliato BRICO CENTER)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/69

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (Affiliato BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-483/09)
   2010/C 24/122
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2009 — R 1048/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Affiliato BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 939 344) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 10 August 1995 by Luigia Dricot and 29 others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-159/95)

text:
14 . 10 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/27
contained in each consignment, the obligation to provide            reasons, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 25 of
security to each of the intervention agencies, and the              the Staff Regulations of officials .
requirement that tenderers must have a commercial
structure in each Member State . The refusal of the                 The applicants also plead an infringement of the terms of the
applicant's tender occurred during a period of one and a half       notice of competition, in that the selection board failed to
years throughout which the defendant, contrary to its               have regard to the nature of the oral test as described in the
former practice, either did not sell any intervention tobacco       said notice . They consider, first, that the candidates from the
at all or sold only to very large international undertakings,       Secretariat, into which category the applicants fall, were
thereby preventing small and medium-sized undertakings in           treated less favourably than their colleagues engaged in
the tobacco sector from obtaining any supplies whatever.            work falling directly within the administrative, budgetary,
                                                                    financial, accounting or technical fields, inasmuch as the
The applicant considers that the Commission has                     files to be dealt with for the purposes of the tests related only
committed a manifest breach of overriding principles of law,        to those fields and not to the Secretariat .
such as the principles of equality and proportionality, and
also a manifest error of assessment, by preventing the entire
class of small and medium-sized Greek undertakings from             They further point out that not all of the members of the
participating in the tendering procedures . The damage thus         selection board participated in all of the oral tests for all of
caused to the applicant goes far beyond the normal risks            the candidates; consequently, the contested decisions were
inherent in the      exercise   of activities  in the   sector      adopted in breach not only of the rules governing the
concerned .                                                         activities of selection boards but also of the principle of
                                                                    non-discrimination and equal treatment between
                                                                    candidates .
                                                                    Lastly, the applicants consider that the decision whereby,
                                                                    despite the defendant's undertaking to provide for 60 posts
Action brought on 10 August 1995 by Luigia Dricot and 29            with a view to upgrading category C posts to category B
others against the Commission of the European                       posts, the number of candidates admitted to the oral tests
                          Communities
                                                                    was limited to 120 constitutes evidence not only of a breach
                       ( Case T-159/95 )                            of the obligation laid down in the fifth paragraph of
                         ( 95/C 268/57 )                            Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations but also of an
                                                                    intention to limit in advance the number of successful
                                                                    candidates .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 August 1995
by Luigia Dricot, Roland Cardoen, Carrelo da Cunha,
Martine Cluyssen, Marie de Wasseige, Rosa De Briones,
Marie-Thérèse De Smedt, Anna Maria Del Grande,                       Action brought on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao against the
Pascaline Deuquet, Mari Doncel , Valente Erasmo, Karine                             Council of the European Union
 Eulaerts, Lorella Feltrin, Yolanda Focci , Christa Forman,                                 ( Case T-161 /95 )
 Rodriguez Guadalupe, Odette Hubert, Jocelyne Husson,                                         ( 95/C 268/58 )
 Sheila Kinsella , Rosario Martinez Berzal , Maria
 Maurer-Reichl , Giordano Merletti, Erik Neesgaard, Marina
 Ogle, Soren Sorensen, Luciana Tenivella, Christiane Unden,                          (Language of the case: French)
 Myriam Van Dam, Rita Verschuren and Aurore Zanchet,
 represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
 Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,          An action against the Council of the European Union was
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.                              Communities on 18 August 1995 by Lino Liao, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
                                                                     Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
 — annul the decision of the selection board for internal            Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
     competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicants a
     lower mark for the oral test than the minimum required          The applicant claims that the Court should :
     and excluding them from the list of successful
     candidates,                                                     — annul the contested staff report,
 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                     — award the sum of Bfrs 250 000, to be increased or
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      decreased as appropriate during the course of the
                                                                          proceedings, as compensation for the material damage
 The applicants maintain, first that the contested decisions              suffered by the applicant in consequence of his having
 are vitiated by the complete absence of any statement of                 been denied any chance of promotion,


title: Case C-408/10: Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/20

         Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-408/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/32
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2008/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 repealing Council Directive 84/539/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electro-medical equipment used in veterinary medicine; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 76, p. 41.


title: Case T-137/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Guiai Bi Poin v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/22

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Guiai Bi Poin v Council
   (Case T-137/11)
   2011/C 130/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Georges Guiai Bi Poin (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Georges GUIAI BI POIN, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Georges GUIAI BI POIN be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law alleging a breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the grounds for including the applicant on the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply are stereotyped without any specific factual element making it possible to assess the relevance of that inclusion being mentioned.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, in so far as:

                           —

                           the applicant is accused of refusing to place himself under the authority of the democratically elected president, A. Ouattara, whereas the applicant may not in the capacity of a soldier avoid obeying the constitutional authorities of his country which have declared L. Gbagbo elected president and

                           —

                           the applicant is accused of being responsible for serious breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law, whereas the applicant has not been challenged by the International Criminal Court whose jurisdiction has been recognised by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire.


title: Case C-493/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Sicurbau Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Sicurbau Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others
      (Case C-493/16)
      (2016/C 454/31)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA

         Question referred

      Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3 bis) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out in the tender rules, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

         (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case T-198/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014  — 100% Capri Italia v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100% Capri)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/35

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — 100% Capri Italia v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100% Capri)
   (Case T-198/14)
   2014/C 159/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: 100% Capri Italia Srl (Capri, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation n. 207/2009; and, accordingly,

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 January 2014 in Case R 2122/2012-2;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word elements ‘100% Capri’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cantoni ITC SpA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘CAPRI’ and national word mark ‘CAPRI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-316/02 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2002 by Hĳos de Andrés Molina S.A. against the judgment delivered by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 2002 in Case T-152/99 between Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 274/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
Appeal brought on 10 September 2002 by Hijos de                             HAMSA had no opportunity, during either the adminis-
Andrés Molina S.A. against the judgment delivered by the                    trative or the judicial procedure, to put forward its
Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                        arguments concerning that new formulation by the Court
First Instance of the European Communities on 10 July                       of First Instance of the matter at issue, which amounted
2002 in Case T-152/99 between Hijos de Andrés Molina                        to breach of HAMSA’s right to a fair hearing. In its
 S.A. and the Commission of the European Communities                        submission, that fact constitutes a breach of procedure
                                                                            which adversely affects its interests within the meaning
                                                                            of Article 51 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice.
                        (Case C-316/02 P)
                                                                            Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Court of First
                                                                            Instance failed to analyse the aid granted to HAMSA in
                         (2002/C 274/29)                                    1994 in accordance with scheme N 462/94 which it
                                                                            regards as applicable.
                                                                       (b)  The rescue and restructuring aid granted on the basis of a
An appeal against the judgment delivered by the Fifth Chamber               restructuring plan was compatible with the common
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the                market:
European Communities on 11 July 2002 in Case T-152/99
between Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. and the Commission of                   In its decision of 3 February 1999 the Commission stated
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                    that it had not received the HAMSA restructuring plan
Justice of the European Communities on 10 September 2002                    until 4 July 1997. None the less, in response to questions
by Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. (HAMSA), represented by Luis                 asked by the Court of First Instance a few days before the
Manuel Olivencia Brugger and José Luis Ballester García-                    hearing, the Commission acknowledged that it had
Izquierdo, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                       received the restructuring plan before the Spanish auth-
                                                                            orities notified it of the aid on 1 July 1996. In actual fact,
                                                                            the restructuring plan was delivered by a Spanish official
                                                                            to a Community official in DG Agriculture in January
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1996, but the Commission did not decide to initiate the
                                                                            procedure under Article 93(3) of the Treaty or to adopt
—     set aside in part the judgment of 11 July 2002, and rule              measures of any kind with regard to the plan and the aid
                                                                            granted in implementing it in accordance with the
                                                                            provisions of the directives relating to the rescuing and
      (a)   that the aid granted to HAMSA in 1994 was                       restructuring of undertakings in crisis. Later, on 29 April
            compatible with Community law, being compatible                 1997, that is to say, 14 months after the restructuring
            with the general aid scheme applicable;                         plan was notified, the Commission gave notice of the
                                                                            opening of the procedure, considering that the aid had
      (b) that the aid granted pursuant to the HAMSA restruc-               not been notified, when, following the Lorenz case-law,
            turing plan in December 1995 was compatible with                it ought to have been regarded as existing aid.
            Community law;
      (c)   uphold the remainder of the contested judgment of
            11 July 2002 which is not challenged in this appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein Hallin-
                                                                       to-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in
(a)   The aid received by HAMSA in 1994 on the basis of a                     the appeal brought by Petri Mikael Manninen
      general aid scheme previously approved by the Com-
      mission was compatible with Community law:
                                                                                (Case C-319/02)
      In its judgment the Court of First Instance introduced a
      new matter, extraneous to the proceedings and to the                                      (2002/C 274/30)
      dispute brought before it. Whereas the parties, HAMSA
      and the Commission, took the view that the aid granted
      in 1993 and 1994 was regulated by general aid schemes
      N 624792 and N 428/93, respectively, the Court of First
      Instance considered that schemes N 428/93 and N 462/             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      94 applied to the aid granted in 1993 and 1994,                  European Communities by order of the korkein Hallinto-
      respectively.                                                    oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 September 2002,


title: Case C-415/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2006 — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2006 — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann
   (Case C-415/06)
   (2006/C 326/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Articles 56 EC and 58 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its profits, from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in a non-member country (here: the United States) on the ground that, according to the applicable double taxation convention, the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in Germany?

               2.

               Having regard to the proviso in Article 57(1) EC, is a convention provision with the above content compatible with Community law if the applicable provisions of the double taxation convention already existed on 31 December 1993 but the exclusion of taking account of losses resulting from those provisions had been removed up to 1998 by domestic German law?


Avis juridique important

|

52003XX1024(05)

Court of Justice - Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0006 - 0007

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court(2003/C 255/11)At its meeting on 9 October 2003, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:- C. Gulmann,- K. Lenaerts,- D. A. O. Edward,- R. Silva de Lapuerta,- A. La Pergola,- A. Rosas,- J.-P. Puissochet,- J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,- R. Schintgen,- S. von Bahr,- F. Macken,- N. Colneric.At its meeting on 9 October 2003, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:First Chamber:- D. A. O. Edward,- K. Lenaerts,- A. La Pergola,- R. Silva de Lapuerta,- S. von Bahr,- A. Rosas.Second Chamber:- C. Gulmann,- J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,- J.-P. Puissochet,- N. Colneric,- R. Schintgen,- F. Macken.At its meeting on 14 October 2003, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:Third Chamber:- D. A. O. Edward,- R. Schintgen,- N. Colneric.Fourth Chamber:- J.-P. Puissochet,- F. Macken,- K. Lenaerts.Fifth Chamber:- A. La Pergola,- S. von Bahr,- R. Silva de Lapuerta.


title: Case C-174/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2016 — H. v Land Berlin

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2016 — H. v Land Berlin
   (Case C-174/16)
   (2016/C 232/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H.

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (1) and the provisions of the Framework Agreement on parental leave published in the annex to that directive to be interpreted as precluding rules of national law under which the probationary period, during which an executive post has been assigned to a person with the status of a civil servant on probation, ends by operation of law and with no possibility of extension even in the case where the male or female civil servant has been and still is on parental leave for most of that probationary period?

               2.

               Are the provisions of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (2), in particular Article 14(1)(a) or (c), Article 15 or Article 16 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that rules of national law with the content referred to in Question 1 constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in the case where a very much higher number of women than men is affected, or may potentially be affected, by those rules?

               3.

               If the answers to Questions 1 or 2 are in the affirmative, does the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of EU law preclude such rules of national law even in the case where the latter are justified by the objective of being able to assess, during the probationary period, the probation for an executive post to be assigned permanently only if the duties are actually performed continuously over a lengthy period?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is also in the affirmative, does the interpretation of European law allow a legal consequence other than continuation of the probationary period immediately following the end of the parental leave — for the duration of the period not yet elapsed at the beginning of the parental leave — for the same or a comparable official position, in the case where, for example, such a position or an equivalent established post is no longer available?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European law require, in this case, for the purpose of filling another official position or another executive post, that a new selection procedure including other candidates in accordance with the provisions of national law should not be held?

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


title: Case T-81/14: Order of the General Court of 1 August 2014  — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/9

         Order of the General Court of 1 August 2014 — Energy Brands v OHIM — Smart Wines (SMARTWATER)
   (Case T-81/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 361/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energy Brands, Inc. (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone and R. Allos, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Smart Wines GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Schwarz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2013 (case R 903/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Smart Wines GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant, the defendant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-312/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/36/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
12 . 7 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
                           of 29 May 1997
                                                                        in Joined Cases C-3 13/96, C-356/96 and C-358/96:
         in Case C-3 12/96: Commission of the European                  Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
                Communities v. French Republic ( 1 )                                                  Belgium (')
                                                                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                  Failure to implement Directives 91/410/EEC, 93/21/EEC
Directive 93/36/EEC — Failure to transpose within the                                              and 93/90/EEC)
                          prescribed period)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/ 14 )
                              97/C 212/ 13
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Joined Cases C-3 13/96, C-356/96 and C-358/96 :
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                                                                        Hendrik van Lier, Jean-Francis Pasquier and Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen ) against Kingdom of Belgium ( Agent: Jan
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Devadder ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
             published in the European Court Reports)                   to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
                                                                        — Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of 22 July 1991
In Case C-3 12/96 : Commission of the European                                adapting to technical progress for the 14th time
Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier ) against French                        Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation
Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Philippe                            of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Martinet ) — application for a declaration that, by failing                   relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations                   of dangerous substances ( OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 ,
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                        p. 67),
Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                  — Commission Directive 93/21 /EEC of 27 April 1993
contracts ( OJ No L 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ) and, in the                    adapting to technical progress for the 18th time
alternative, by failing to inform the Commission forthwith                    Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 110, 4 . 5 . 1993 ,
of the adoption of such measures, the French Republic has                     p. 20 ), with the exception of the provisions of that
failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in                   Directive applicable to mobile gas cylinders containing
particular Article 34 thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber)                    butane, propane or liquid petroleum gas, and
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                   — Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of 29 October 1993
Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate                       concerning the list of substances referred to in
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 May                       Article 13 ( 1 ) ( fifth indent ) of Directive 67/548/EEC
1997, in which it:                                                             ( OJ No L 277, 10 . 11 . 1993 , p. 33 ),
                                                                        and/or by failing to communicate the measures for their
                                                                        implementation, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            fulfil its obligations under those Directives — the Court
                                                                         ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
       period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                        President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur),
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                        D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;
       93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
                                                                        F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave
       for the award of public supply contracts, the French
                                                                        a judgment on 29 May 1997, the operative part of which
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the           is as follows :
       first paragraph of Article 34 (1 ) of that Directive;
                                                                         1 . By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                               laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               necessary to comply with:
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               — Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of 22 July
                                                                                1991 adapting to technical progress for
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .                                               the   14th     time    Council    Directive  67/548/
                                                                                EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions relating to
                                                                                the classification, packaging and labelling of
                                                                                dangerous substances,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen by order of that court of 21 December 1995 in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case C-409/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 46/ 11
4 . According to the decision, GSM radiotelephony services                 Commerce ( Commercial Court), Paris, ( First Chamber A ) of
       ' should . . . probably be regarded as also constituting a          27 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
       market separate from the market for analogue mobile                 29 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       telephony'. In the view of the Italian Government, that             Eurotunnel SA, France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and
       conclusion is mistaken and, in any event, insufficiently            The Channel Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle
       substantiated .                                                     d'Armement Transmanche — Voluntary interveners :
                                                                           International Duty Free Confederation , Airport Operators
5 . The contested decision is vitiated by errors of assessment             Association Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre
       and a defective statement of reasons .
                                                                           Irlande and Passenger Shipping Association Limited — on
                                                                           the following questions :
0 ) OJ No L 280 , 23 . 11 . 1995 , p . 49 .
                                                                           1 . Given the fact that Eurotunnel did not bring an action
                                                                                pursuant to Article 173 for the annulment of those parts
                                                                                of Council Directives 91 /680/EEC and 92/ 12/EEC
                                                                                relating to taxation (VAT and excise duty ) on
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Kingdom of                              cross-channel links ( J ) and that an application brought
Belgium against the Commission of the European                                    by Eurotunnel in the High Court of Justice was
                               Communities
                                                                                dismissed by decision of 17 February 1995 , will an
                           ( Case C-407/95 )                                      application for their annulment brought by Eurotunnel
                               ( 96/C 46/ 19 )                                    lie pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty ?
An action against the Commission of the European                           2 . If so, did the Chamber adopt those directives
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        lawfully ?
European Communities on 22 December 1995 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director                          In the alternative, does Directive 94/4/EC ( 2 ) cover a
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                             possible annulment of those two directives ?
Foreign Trade and Development Aid, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des                    3 . In the event of annulment, must the fact that SA SNAT
Girondins .                                                                       — Nouvelle d'Armement Transmanche — applied the
                                                                                fiscal laws adopted pursuant to those directives be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      imputed to it as a fault ? If so, as from what date was the
                                                                                fault committed ?
annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2358/95 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff               ( J ) Council Directive 91 /680/EEC, Article 1 ( 22 ) ( Article 28k of
quota for imports of bananas during the fourth quarter of                         Directive 77/388/EEC ) ( OJ 1991 L 376 , pp . 1 and 17 ); Council
 1995 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and Marilyn ( 1 ),                Directive 92/ 12/EEC, Article 28 ( OJ 1992 L 76 , pp . 1 and
and order the Commission to pay the costs .                                       12 ).
                                                                            ( 2 ) Council Directive 94/4/EC ( OJ 1994 L 60, p . 14 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 invoked against Regulation ( EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case
 C-9/95 ( 2 ).
 (') OJ No L 241 , 10 . 10 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                   Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen by order of that court of
                                                                            21 December 1995 in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
                                                                                ( Case C-409/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/21 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
 Commerce de Paris ( First Chamber A) by judgment of that
 court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eurotunnel SA,                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and the Channel                            European Communities by an order of the First Chamber of
 Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle d'Armement                         the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen ( Gelsenkirchen
                                                                             Administrative Court) of 21 December 1995 , which was
 Transmanche — Voluntary interveners: International Duty
 Free Confederation, Airport Operators Association                           received at the Court Registry on 29 December 1995 , for a
 Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre Irlande and                       preliminary ruling in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
              Passenger Shipping Association Limited                         Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:
                             ( Case C-408/95 )                               Does Article 2(1 ) and ( 4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC
                                 ( 96/C 46/20 )                              of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle
                                                                             of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     employment, vocational training and promotion, and
  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        working conditions ( ] ) preclude a rule of national law under
 ---pagebreak--- No C 46/12          | EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         17. 2 . 96
which in official sectors in which fewer women than men are               against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
employed in the relevant higher grade post in a career group,             parte: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
where men and women promotion candidates are equally                      Animals and Compassion in World Farming Ltd, on the
qualified ( suitability, competence and professional                      following questions:
performance ) women must be given priority unless reasons
specific to a male candidate predominate ?
                                                                          'Where :
(') OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
                                                                          ( a ) all of the Member States have become parties to the
                                                                                European Convention for the Protection of Animals
                                                                                Kept for Farming Purposes 1976 ('the Convention')
                                                                                and the Convention has been approved by EC Decision
                                                                                78/923/EEC (*) of 18 June 1978 ( OJ L 323 , 1978 ,
                                                                                p. 12 );
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commerce, Nice, by judgment of that court of 1 February
1995 in the case of Societe des Grands Garages                            ( b ) the 1988 Recommendation concerning cattle ('the
Mediterraneens SA and Nissan France against Societe Nice                         Recommendation') has been adopted by the Standing
                      Quest Automobiles                                          Committee established pursuant to the Convention and
                                                                                has    become    effective   under    the   terms    of   the
                        ( Case C-4 10/95 )                                       Convention;
                           ( 96/C 46/22 )
                                                                          (c ) the standards laid down by and pursuant to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           Convention contain stipulations as to the minimum
European Communities by judgment of the 7th Chamber of                           width of veal crates and the composition of veal calves '
the Tribunal de Commerce ( Commercial Court), Nice, of                           diets;
1 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 27 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens SA and Nissan                   ( d ) Council Directive 91 /629/EEC ( 2 ) lays down obligatory
France against Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles on the                             minimum standards for the protection of calves which
following question :                                                             are lower than the standards laid down by and pursuant
                                                                                to the Convention in certain respects, including the
Must Regulation No 123/85 (*) of the European Economic                           width of veal crates and the composition of calves '
Community be interpreted as prohibiting professional                             diets;
resellers of vehicles who are not party to an exclusive
distribution network from obtaining supplies from an agent                (e ) the Directive permits Member States to maintain or
for the same manufacturer in another Member State ?
                                                                                apply within their territories stricter provisions for the
                                                                                protection of calves than those laid down in this
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December                       Directive;
    1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to certain
    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
    agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ).                                  ( f) veal calves are exported from a Member State
                                                                                ('Member State A') to certain other Member States
                                                                                ('Member States B') which have implemented and/or
                                                                                complied with the Directive but have not implemented
                                                                                and/or complied with the standards indicated at
                                                                                paragraph (c ) above although Member State A has
                                                                                implemented and complied with those standards;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                 ( g) the export of calves to face rearing contrary to the
 12 December 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the                         Convention is considered to be cruel and immoral by
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: The                       animal welfare organizations and a considerable body
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and                       of public opinion, supported by authoritative scientific
             Compassion in World Farming Ltd.                                    veterinary opinion, in the Member State from which
                            Case C-l /96 )                                       exports occur.'
                            ( 96/C 46/23 )
                                                                           1 . In the circumstances set out above, may Member State A
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty and, in particular, the
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                          grounds of public morality and/or public policy and/or
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 12 December 1995 ,                          the protection of the health or life of animals contained
 which was received at the Court Registry on 2 January                          therein, to justify any restriction in relation to the export
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                        of live calves from Member State A with a view to