title: Judgment of the Court of 9 October 2001 in Case C-377/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Annulment — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Legal basis — Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC), Article 235 of the EC Treaty (now Article 308 EC) or Articles 130 and 130f of the EC Treaty (now Articles 157 EC and 163 EC) — Subsidiarity — Legal certainty — Obligations of Member States under international law — Fundamental rights — Human dignity — Principle of collegiality for draft legislation of the Commission)

text:
24.11.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 331/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 2001, in which
                                                                             it:
                        of 9 October 2001
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application;
in Case C-377/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v European                      2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear the costs;
     Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                             3.    Orders the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Norway and the
(Annulment — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of                              Commission each to bear their own costs.
biotechnological inventions — Legal basis — Article 100a
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC),                      (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
Article 235 of the EC Treaty (now Article 308 EC) or
Articles 130 and 130f of the EC Treaty (now Articles 157
EC and 163 EC) — Subsidiarity — Legal certainty —
Obligations of Member States under international law —
Fundamental rights — Human dignity — Principle of
     collegiality for draft legislation of the Commission)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2001/C 331/01)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                   of 9 October 2001
                                                                             in Case C-409/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)]: Commissioners of
                                                                                Customs & Excise v Mirror Group plc (1)
In Case C-377/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                        (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for the leasing or letting
M.A. Fierstra and I. van der Steen) supported by Italian                     of immovable property — Meaning — Undertaking to
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri), and by                                           become a tenant)
Kingdom of Norway (Agent: H.W. Longva) v European
Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and E. Vandenbosch) and Council                                          (2001/C 331/02)
of the European Union (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono, G. Houttuin
and A. Lo Monaco) supported by Commission of the European                                       (Language of the case: English)
Communities (Agents: K. Banks and P. van Nuffel) — appli-
cation for annulment of Directive 98/44/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal                    In Case C-409/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213,                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
p. 13) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                   Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr                   isional Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                   proceedings pending before that court between Com-
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet,              missioners of Customs & Excise and Mirror Group plc — on
V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    the interpretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2000 in Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali Venete v European Ombudsman and European Parliament (Actions for failure to act — Ombudsman — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 233/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12.8.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 16 June 2000                                                             of 22 May 2000
                                                                            in Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay v European Invest-
  in Case T-84/98: C v Council of the European Union (1)                                                ment Bank (1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Invalidity Committee                    (European Investment Bank (EIB) — Actions by members of
— Retirement — Breach of essential procedural require-                      staff — Measure capable of being contested — Manifest
     ments — Misuse of powers — Non-material damage)                                                   inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/52)
                          (2000/C 233/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-96/99: Pieter F. Fleurbaay, a former member of the
In Case T-84/98: C, former official of the Council of the                   staff of the European Investment Bank, residing at Waldbredi-
European Union, residing in Dublin (Ireland), represented by                mus (Luxembourg), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels
Séamus O Tuathail, Barrister of the Bar of Ireland, with an                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg c/o Michael O’Toole, Irish                Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v European
Embassy, 28 Route d’Arlon v Council of the European Union,                  Investment Bank (Agent: L. La Marca) — application for
represented by Colin Robertson and Thérèse Blanchet, Legal                  annulment of the decision taken by the European Investment
Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Bank, in the form of a letter from its President dated
Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli, General                    18 February 1999 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Counsel of the Legal Affairs Directorate in the European                    of: V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi,
Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer — applica-                   Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 May 2000, the
tion first, for annulment of Council Decision No 677/97 of                  operative part of which is as follows:
11 July 1997 retiring the applicant on grounds of total
permanent invalidity and for an order requiring the Council to              1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
pay compensation for the material and non-material damage
suffered — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vester-               2.    The parties are to bear their own costs;
dorf, President, M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                            3.    The Kingdom of the Netherlands is to bear its own costs.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls Council Decision No 677/97 of 11 July 1997 by                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      which it retired the applicant on its own initiative on grounds
      of total permanent invalidity;
2.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant the difference between
      the salary which she received before her retirement and that
      granted to her on the basis of the contested decision, and any
      other amount which the applicant received before her retirement,            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      together with interest at an annual rate of 5,5 %;
                                                                                of 22 May 2000
3.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant the sum of
      BEF 2 000 000 as compensation for the non-material damage             in Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali
      caused to her, together with interest at an annual rate of 5,5 %      Venete v European Ombudsman and European Parli-
      until the date of payment;                                                                           ament (1)
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                (Actions for failure to act — Ombudsman — Inadmissibili-
                                                                                ty)
5.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                                            (2000/C 233/53)
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-103/99: Associazione delle Cantine Sociali Venete,
                                                                            established in Padua (Italy), represented by I. Cacciavillani, of
                                                                            the Venice Bar, and A. Cimino, of the Padua Bar, with an
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/29
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      Action brought on 23 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk
A. Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I, v European Ombudsman (Agent:                  GmbH against the Office for Harmonization in the
G. Grill) and European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
A. Caiola) — application for a declaration that the Om-
budsman and, as the case may be, the Parliament unlawfully
failed to make a finding of maladministration on the part of                                      (Case T-138/00)
the Commission — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and
N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                                          (2000/C 233/55)
22 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                                              (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          25 May 2000 by Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH, Ertingen, Federal
                                                                          Republic of Germany, represented by Stephan v. Petersdorff-
                                                                          Campen, Rechtsanwälte von Rospatt, von der Osten, Pross,
                                                                          Düsseldorf.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          of 24 May 2000
                                                                          —     annul decision R 392/1999-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                                Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
in Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand v Commission of                             Market of 23 March 2000 in so far as it dismisses the
                  the European Communities                                      appeal;
(Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Reassignment
      decision — Prima facie case — Urgency — None)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 233/54)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-72/00 R: Steffen Skovmand, an official of the                   Trade mark:                   Word mark ‘DAS PRINZIP DER
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Buch-                                               BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ — applica-
arest (Romania), represented by G. Vandersanden, of the                                                 tion no. 806620
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v                 Goods or services:            Goods in classes 12 and 20 (inter
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-                                               alia vehicles and furniture)
sia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application, first, and by
way of interim measures, for access to the file of the steering
                                                                          Decision contested befo-      ner
committee of the Commission’s External Service or, at the very
                                                                          re the Board of Appeal:
least, for production by the Commission of all reports and
                                                                                Refusal to register by the Exami-
other documents concerning the applicant and, second, for
suspension of operation of the decision of that committee of              Pleas in law relied on:
28 January 2000 reassigning the applicant to the Directorate-                                           — Misapplication
                                                                                cle 7(1)(b) of     of
                                                                                Regulation
                                                                                Arti-
General for the Internal Market in Brussels — the President of                                               No 40/94
the Court of First Instance made an order on 24 May 2000,                                               — Misapplication        of   Arti-
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                   cle 7(1)(c) of     Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 May 1997 in Case T-195/95: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 199/22             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Communities (Agents : initially, Franscisco Enrique
                           of 6 May 1997                                 Gonzalez Diaz and Guy Charrier, and subsequently
                                                                         Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier ) — action for
in Case T-169/95 : Agustin Quijano v. Commission of the                  damages based on the alleged failure of the Commission
                    European Communities (')                             to act, in so far as its failure to take a decision on a
(Officials — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Medical                  complaint submitted by the applicant has caused the latter
examination — Conclusions at variance with the medical                   damage — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
                                certificate)                             Extended Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
                                                                         President, C. P. Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; A.
                            ( 97/C 199/61 )                              Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 6 May 1997, in which it:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         1 . dismisses the claims for compensation as inadmissible;
In Case T-169/95 : Agustin Quijano, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   relating to the proceedings concerning the claim for a
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30                       declaration of failure to act.
Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of a
 decision of 21 September 1994, by which the Commission
treated as unauthorized the applicant's absence from
 8 August to 23 August 1994 and imputed 10 days against
 his annual leave entitlement — the Court of First Instance
 ( Second Chamber ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 President, A. Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                             of 14 May 1997
 given a judgment on 6 May 1997, the operative part of                   in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 : Florimex BV and
 which is as follows :                                                   Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproduk
                                                                              ten v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
 1 . The decision of 21 September 1994, by which the                      (Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint sent to the
       Commission treated as unauthorized the applicant 's                complainants ' lawyer's postoffice box — Calculation of
       absence from 8 August to 23 August 1 994 and                       time-limit for bringing an action — Compatibility with
       imputed 10 days against his annual leave entitlement,              Article 2 of Regulation No 26 of a fee charged to external
       is annulled.
                                                                          suppliers on floricultural products supplied to wholesalers
                                                                          established on the premises of a cooperative society of
 2 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                                      auctioneers — Statement of reasons)
  (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/63 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92 : Florimex BV and
                                                                          Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproduk
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               ten, established in Aalsmeer ( Netherlands ), represented
                            of 6 May 1997                                 initially by D. J. Gijlstra, of the Amsterdam Bar, then by
                                                                          J. A. M. P. Keijser, of the Nijmegen Bar, with an address
  in Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg care of Stanbrook and Hooper,
                  the European Communities ( 1 )                          at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
     (Competition — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)                 Foire, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          ( Agent: B. J. Drijber ), supported by Cooperatieve Vereni
                              ( 97/C 199/62 )                             ging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer ( VBA ) BA,
                                                                          established in Aalsmeer, represented by G. van der Wal, a
                  (Language of the case: French)                          lawyer with right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg
  In Case T- 195/95 : Guérin Automobiles, with its registered             at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue — application
  office at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean-Claude                for the annulment of the Commission Decision ( IV/32.751
  Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              — Florimex/Aalsmeer II and IV/32.990 — VGB/Aalsmeer )
  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue                    notified to the applicants by letter SG(92)D/8782 of 2 July
  Beatrix de Bourbon, against Commission of the European                   1992, rejecting the applications which they had each made


title: Case F-117/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Frontex staff — Temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract — Renewal procedure — Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard — Infringement — Influence on the content of the decision)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/65

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — Wahlström v Frontex
      (Case F-117/13) (1)

      ((Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Renewal procedure - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Infringement - Influence on the content of the decision))
      (2014/C 395/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff after the annulment, by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-87/11, of the first decision of non-renewal of his contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, of 19 February 2013, not to renew Mr Wahlström’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay Mr Wahlström’s costs.

         (1)  OJ C 31, 1/2/2014, p. 23.


title: (2006/C )

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/32

         (2006/C )
   (2006/C 261/65)
   On 20 September 2006, in accordance with Article 4 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Civil Service Tribunal decided to maintain in force until 30 September 2007 the following conditions for the assignment of cases to chambers:

               —

               the First Chamber shall hear all cases, with the exception of those principally concerning questions of recruitment, assessment/promotion and final termination of service, which shall be heard by the Second Chamber;

               —

               a number of cases shall be assigned to the Third Chamber, regardless of the subject-matter involved, at regular intervals to be determined at a plenary meeting of the Tribunal;

               —

               derogations from the above rules on assignment may be made for reasons of connections between cases and to ensure a balanced and reasonably varied workload within the Tribunal.


title: Case C-317/02: Action brought on 11 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 261/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.10.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                   Action brought on 11 September 2002 by the Com-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 27 August 2002 in                     mission of the European Communities against Ireland
the appeal brought by Annliese Lenz against Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Tirol (the regional finance authority for
                             Tyrol)
                                                                                (Case C-317/02)
                        (Case C-315/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/13)
                        (2002/C 261/12)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 11 September 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   by Thomas van Rijn and Keir Fitch, acting as agents, with an
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                address for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero,
hof (Administrative Court) of 27 August 2002, received at the            Centre Wagner C-254, Luxembourg.
Court Registry on 6 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeal brought by Annliese Lenz against Finanzlandesdi-
rektion für Tirol (the regional finance authority for Tyrol) on
the following questions:
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Does Article 73b(1) in conjunction with Article 73d(1)(a)          1.    declare that
      and (b) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) in
      conjunction with Article 58(1)(a) and (b) and (3) EC)
      preclude a provision such as that in Paragraph 97(1) and
      (4) of the Einkommensteuergesetz 1988 (1988 Law on                       —    in not putting in place the criteria and detailed rules
      Income Tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 37(1) and (4)                       for the use of the fishing quota allocated to it,
      of the Einkommensteuergesetz 1988, under which a
      taxpayer in receipt of dividends from domestic shares
      may choose whether they should be subject to a tax rate                  —    by failing to ensure compliance with Community
      of 25 % on flat-rate and final taxation or whether they                       rules on the conservation of aquatic marine living
      should be taxed at a rate equivalent to half of the average                   resources by the monitoring of fishing activities,
      tax rate applicable to the aggregate income, whereas                          appropriate inspection of landings and the recording
      dividends from foreign shares are always taxed at the                         of catches, inspections and other controls as required
      normal rate of income tax?                                                    by the relevant Community Regulations,
2.    Is the level of taxation of the revenue of a limited                     —    by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by vessels
      company which has its seat and head office in another                         flying its flag or registered in its territory when the
      EU Member State or a non-Member State in which shares                         quotas allocated to it were deemed to be exhausted,
      are held of relevance to the answer to the first question?                    and
3.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,               —    by failing to initiate administrative or criminal
      can the situation described in Article 73b(1) of the EC                       proceedings against the masters of vessels infringing
      Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) arise as a result of the                        the Regulations, or against such other person as was
      corporation tax paid in the countries in which they are                       responsible for such infringement, Ireland has failed
      established by companies limited by shares with seats and                     to carry out the obligations imposed on it by i)
      head offices in other EU Member States or non-Member                          article 9 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92
      States being credited pro rata against the Austrian income                    of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community
      tax payable by the recipient of the dividends?                                system for fisheries and aquaculture (1), ii) article 2
                                                                                of Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
                                                                                establishing a control system applicable to the
                                                                                common fisheries policy (2), iii) article 21 of Regu-
                                                                                lation 2847/93, iv) article 31 of Regulation
                                                                                No 2847/93.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 261/9
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by restricting itself to transposing part of
                                                                              Article 1 of and Annexes IV and V of Council Directive
                                                                              98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 on the contained use of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               genetically modified micro-organisms ( 1) or, in any event,
                                                                              by failing to communicate other implementing measures
The Commission submits that:                                                  to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
                                                                              directive;
—     Ireland has infringed Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92
      by failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
      proper utilisation of the quota allocated to it. The rules        —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      should have been such as to enable Ireland to ensure that
      overfishing did not take place and that quotas were
      always respected;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Ireland did not ensure compliance with Community rules
      on control, contrary to Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93;
                                                                        Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
—     Ireland did not respect its obligation under Article 21 of        directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      Regulation 2847/93 to prohibit fishery provisionally              each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
      when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have been            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
      exhausted;                                                        their transposition.
—     by failing to institute criminal or administrative proceed-
      ings against the skipper or any other party responsible           The Commission finds that, despite the prescribed time-limit
      for preventing overfishing Ireland has not complied in            having expired, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has carried
      full with the obligations imposed by Article 31 of                out only a partial transposition of the directive referred to in
      Regulation 2847/93.                                               the Commission’s pleadings, restricted to part of Article 1
                                                                        thereof and Annexes IV and V thereto.
( 1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13.
Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Commission                       Action brought on 18 September 2002 by the Com-
of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                      mission of the European Communities against the
                           Luxembourg                                                           Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-325/02)                                                         (Case C-328/02)
                         (2002/C 261/14)                                                         (2002/C 261/15)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Sep-
ties on 16 September 2002 by the Commission of the                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and                      ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in
F. Simonetti, acting as Agents.                                         its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-433/15: Action brought on 6 August 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/22

         Action brought on 6 August 2015 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-433/15)
   (2015/C 354/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, D. Nardi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

                           (a)

                           declare that, by failing to ensure that the additional levy payable in respect of quantities produced in Italy in excess of the national quota from the first year in which the additional levy was in fact applied in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which there was surplus production in Italy (2008/2009) was in fact charged to the account of the individual producers who had contributed to each of the production overruns and that it was paid at the appropriate time, upon their being given notification of the amount payable, by the purchaser or the producer in the case of direct sales or, where the levy was not paid within the period prescribed, registered and, where possible, collected by way of enforcement from those purchasers or producers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by the relevant provisions of EU law applicable in the years concerned, in particular: (i) Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1), (ii) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (2), (iii) Articles 79, 80 and 83 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (3), and, with regard to the Commission’s implementing provisions, (iv) Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 536/1993 (4), (v) Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (5), and (vi) Articles 15 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 (6);

               —

                           (b)

                           order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its claim, the Commission submits that, according to the figures provided by the Italian authorities or, in any event, acquired in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, the total amount of the additional levy yet to be recovered is EUR 1  343 million. The total amount of the additional levy actually recovered is approximately EUR 282 million out of a total levy charged of approximately EUR 2  305 million, during the period from the first marketing year in which the additional levy system was formally introduced in Italy (1995/1996) until the last year in which surplus production was recorded (2008/2009). After deduction of the amounts covered by instalment plans (EUR 469 million) and sums written off (EUR 211 million), the ratio of the levy actually collected to the levy still to be recovered, net of sums that are the subject of instalment plans and amounts written off, is 21 %. In essence, the sums actually recovered represent less than a quarter of those still to be recovered at the date set out in the reasoned opinion.
   The Commission states that the percentage of the sums actually recovered vis-à-vis the sums charged for each marketing year concerned, net of sums that are the subject of instalment plans and sums written off, shows that the system for the application of the additional levy is ineffective (given that it was generally below 21 %) during the period under consideration, notwithstanding the fact that, by the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, more than five years had elapsed since the end of the last marketing year in which there was a production surplus in Italy.
   With regard to the justification put forward by Italy, to the effect that the actual recovery of the sums payable by way of the levy has been hindered by numerous actions still pending which the debtors have brought in respect of claims for payment, the Commission has presented figures relating to the sums actually recovered vis-à-vis the sums outstanding in respect of which the payments in question are not contested, for each marketing year concerned. The figures show that, out of a total of approximately EUR 1  068 million payable, only EUR 241 million has been recovered, corresponding to 23 % of the amount that may be claimed, for which there is no justification.
   Given that the function of the additional levy is to discourage milk production that exceeds national reference quantities (NRQ), the continuing failure to recover such large sums 20 years after the introduction of the production quota system in Italy and six years since the last NRQ was exceeded in Italy has deprived the additional levy system of the effectiveness intended by the legislature, as also demonstrated by the fact that the NRQ was repeatedly exceeded in each marketing year between the years 1995/1996 and 2008/2009.
   The Commission maintains that the failure to recover such large sums relating to the additional levy may be attributed to specific acts of negligence on the part of the Italian Republic, which explain the lack of effectiveness of the scheme for charging the additional levy in Italy during the period in question.
   In the first place, the legislative confusion which characterised the Italian implementing rules caused a delay in the effective implementation of the levy system in Italy and an abnormally large volume of legal proceedings, which have had the effect of precluding the collection of the levy due to the suspension of payments ordered by the national courts as a protective measure.
   In the second place, Italy has failed to make effective use of all the administrative mechanisms available for the effective recovery of the sums payable by way of the levy, such as offsetting. A scheme providing for the possibility of offsetting the levies to be collected against aid to be granted under the common agricultural policy has been introduced in an ineffective and belated manner and Italian laws are still in force today which hinder the implementation of that scheme.
   In the third place, collection procedures have, for the most part, been blocked from the entry into force of Law 33/2009 to date, due to the absence of implementing provisions or contractual agreements between the authorities and the bodies involved which are necessary for the resumption of those procedures.
   In the fourth place, it is apparent to the Commission that, as a result of methodological errors on the part of the authorities responsible for recovery, sums that are recoverable have been regarded, incorrectly, as not recoverable, thus giving rise to further failings in the effectiveness of the collection of the additional levy.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22).


title: Case C-171/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Andrea Sacripanti v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/32

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Andrea Sacripanti v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-171/10)
      (2010/C 161/45)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Andrea Sacripanti

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case F-98/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — CP v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Head of unit — Trial period — Not confirmed in the post of Head of unit — Enforcement of a judgment for annulment — Loss of opportunity)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2016 — CP v Parliament
   (Case F-98/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Head of unit - Trial period - Not confirmed in the post of Head of unit - Enforcement of a judgment for annulment - Loss of opportunity))
   (2016/C 191/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CP (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and O. Caisou-Rousseau, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of 18 July 2014, which, following the judgment of the Tribunal in Case F-8/13, CP v European Parliament, of 26 March 2014, confirmed the applicant in his post as Head of unit, in so far as that decision does not provide for retroactive recognition of the status of Head of unit and the retroactive award of the increase in basic salary for his post (the management allowance), and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay CP the sum of EUR 3 219,55. Default interest calculated at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable to the material period, increased by two points, to run from 1 July 2011 until the date of actual payment, shall be added to that sum;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015, p. 86.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2000 in Case C-49/99 P: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Aid to sugar-beet producers — Abolition — 2001/2002 marketing year — Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded)

text:
10.3.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 79/9
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                         of 5 October 2000
in Case C-3/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                of 6 October 2000
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): criminal proceedings against
                    Dany Schacht and Others (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                       in Case C-49/99 P: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori
    identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                    (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                           (2001/C 79/16)
                                                                           (Appeal — Aid to sugar-beet producers — Abolition —
                                                                           2001/2002 marketing year — Appeal clearly inadmissible
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                  and unfounded)
In Case C-3/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(formerly Article 177 of the EC Treaty) from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the                                             (2001/C 79/17)
criminal proceedings pending before that court against Dany
Schacht and Others on the interpretation of Article 1(a)(i) and
Article 14a(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
to members of their families moving within the Community,
in the version thereof amended and updated by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983
L 230, p. 6) and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-49/99 P: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB),
No 3811/86 of 11 December 1986 (OJ 1986 L 355, p. 5) —                     established in Rome (Italy), Francesco Coccia, residing in
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de                   Manfredonia (Italy), and Vincenzo Di Giovine, residing in
Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                 Lucera (Italy), represented by L.F. Paolucci and G.P. Galletti, of
and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                  the Bologna Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October 2000, the              the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde —
operative part of which is as follows:                                     appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
1.    The term ‘work’ appearing in Article 14a(1) (a) of Regulation        sition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-38/98 ANB and Others
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the               v Council [1998] ECR II-4191, seeking to have that order set
      application of social security schemes to employed persons, to       aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Council of
      self-employed persons and to members of their families moving        the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı́ez Parra) —
      within the Community, in the version thereof amended and             the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
      updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June             President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and
      1983 and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No                 A. La Pergola, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      3811/86 of 11 December 1986, means any work performed                Registrar, has made an order on 6 October 2000, the operative
      on an employed or self-employed basis.                               part of which is as follows:
2.    As long as it is not withdrawn or declared invalid, an E 101
      certificate issued pursuant to Article 11a of Regulation (EEC)       1.    The appeal is dismissed;
      No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the
      procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
      in the version thereof amended and updated by Regulation No          2.    The Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Mr Coccia and Mr Di
      2001/83 and subsequently by Regulation No 3811/86, is                      Giovine are ordered to pay the costs.
      binding on the competent institution of the Member State to
      which a self-employed worker goes in order to perform work
      and on the person who avails himself of the services of that
      worker.                                                              (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.


title: Case C-430/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Euro Tyre Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 8(1)(a) and (b), Article 28a(1)(a), Article 28b(A)(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) — Exemption of supplies of goods dispatched or transported within the European Union — Successive supplies of the same goods giving rise to a single intra-Community dispatch or transport)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Euro Tyre Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-430/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 8(1)(a) and (b), Article 28a(1)(a), Article 28b(A)(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) - Exemption of supplies of goods dispatched or transported within the European Union - Successive supplies of the same goods giving rise to a single intra-Community dispatch or transport)
   2011/C 55/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro Tyre Holding BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), Article 28a(1)(a), Article 28b(A)(1) and Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of supplies of goods dispatched or transported within the Community — Successive supplies of the same goods giving rise to a single intra-Community dispatch or transport of goods

      Operative part of the judgment

   When goods are the subject of two successive supplies between different taxable persons acting as such, but of a single intra-Community transport, the determination of the transaction to which that transport should be ascribed, namely the first or second supply — given that that transaction therefore falls within the concept of an intra-Community supply for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and (b), the first subparagraph of Article 28a(1)(a), and Article 28b(A)(1) of that directive — must be conducted in the light of an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case in order to establish which of those two supplies fulfils all the conditions relating to an intra-Community supply.
   In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which the first person acquiring the goods, having obtained the right to dispose of the goods as owner in the Member State of the first supply, expresses his intention to transport those goods to another Member State and presents his value added tax identification number attributed by that other State, the intra-Community transport should be ascribed to the first supply, on condition that the right to dispose of the goods as owner has been transferred to the second person acquiring the goods in the Member State of destination of the intra-Community transport. It is for the referring court to establish whether that condition has been fulfilled in the case pending before it.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case F-29/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — Wisniewski v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — Wisniewski v Commission
   (Case F-29/14) (1)

   (2016/C 136/72)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16/6/2014, p. 44.


title: Case C-338/05 P: Order of the Court of 13 July 2006 — Front National and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Regulation and funding of political parties at European level — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Act open to challenge — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/18

         Order of the Court of 13 July 2006 — Front National and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-338/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Regulation and funding of political parties at European level - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act open to challenge - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 224/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Front National, Marie-France Stirbois, Bruno Gollnisch, Carl Lang, Jean-Claude Martinez, Philip Claeys, Koen Dillen and Mario Borghezio (represented by: W. de Saint Just, avocat)

      Respondents: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Díez Parra and M. Sims-Robertson, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-17/04 Front National and Others v European Parliament and Council, by which it dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1).
   Operative part of the order
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the appellants to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005


title: Case T-407/11: Action brought on 26 July 2011 — SRF v Council

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/41

         Action brought on 26 July 2011 — SRF v Council
   (Case T-407/11)
   2011/C 282/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SRF Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 469/2011 of 13 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India (OJ 2009 L 129, p. 1, hereafter referred to as ‘the contested Regulation’); and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation infringes Article 9(6) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), in that:

               1.

               Firstly, the said Article stipulates that the anti-dumping duty for exporters or producers which have made themselves known but were not included in the sample shall not exceed the weighted average dumping margin established for parties selected in the sample, whereby zero and de minimis margins shall be disregarded. By imposing an anti-dumping duty of 15,5 % on SRF, the contested Regulation violates this rule since the weighted average dumping margin for the parties selected in the sample, whose dumping margins are not zero or de minimis is lower than 15,5% ; and

               2.

               Secondly, by requiring an exporting producer to request an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 for the application of Article 9(6), in a situation in which existing anti-dumping duty rates are adjusted following the expiry of concurrent countervailing measures, the contested Regulation inserts a condition into Article 9(6) that is absent in the express text of that provision, which amounts to the impermissible interpretation by the Council.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51 (consolidated text)


title: Case C-219/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Unjustified obstacle — Posting of workers who are nationals of non-member States)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-219/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Unjustified obstacle - Posting of workers who are nationals of non-member States)
   2009/C 282/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa, J.-P. Keppenne and G. Rozet, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent, and M. Detry, avocat)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Unjustified obstacle to the free provision of services — Posting of workers who are nationals of third countries

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Belgium each to bear its own costs..

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.07.2008.


title: Case C-288/12: Action brought on 8 June 2012 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/15

         Action brought on 8 June 2012 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-288/12)
   2012/C 227/22
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and B.D. Simon, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Hungary

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data by removing the data protection supervisor from office before time.

               —

               Order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directive 95/46/EC provides that one or more public authorities of the Member States, which are to act with complete independence in exercising the functions entrusted to them, are to be responsible for monitoring the application of the national provisions transposing that Directive.
   In Hungary, that authority was, until 31 December 2011, the data protection supervisor. Under the Hungarian legislation in force until 31 December 2011, the data protection supervisor was elected by the Hungarian Parliament for a period of six years. The term of office of the data protection supervisor in post on 31 December 2011 began on 29 September 2008, so that, in normal circumstances, he should have remained in post until September 2014.
   With effect from 1 January 2012 the Hungarian legislation on this subject was amended. As a result of those amendments, the post of data protection supervisor was withdrawn and the data protection supervisor who had occupied the post since 29 September 2008 was removed from office. The authority responsible for supervising data protection in Hungary, within the meaning of Directive 95/46 was thereafter the newly created Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság (national authority for data protection and freedom of information, ‘the authority’). According to the new legislation, the head of that authority is appointed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Prime Minister for a term of nine years. The previous data protection supervisor was not appointed to that post.
   In the opinion of the Commission, the removal from office before time of the authority responsible for supervising data protection undermines the independence required by the Directive of that authority. The Directive does not fix the duration of the term of office of that supervisory authority, so that, in principle, the Member States are free to fix it. However, the term of office has to be of reasonable duration and it is indispensable that once a Member State has fixed the duration of that term of office, that duration should be respected. Otherwise, there would be a risk that the exercise of the functions of the supervisory authority would be influenced by the risk of removal from office before time, and that risk would undermine the independence of that authority.
   As regards the admissibility of the application, the Commission alleges that, given that the authority previously entrusted with the supervision of data was not reinstated before the end of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the infringement had not been remedied at that time. It takes the view that it is not impossible to remedy the infringement: Hungary needs to adopt the necessary measures to reinstate the previous data protection supervisor in the post referred to in Directive 95/46 for the remainder of his term of office from 31 December 2011. The Commission would consider it an adequate remedy if the previous data protection supervisor were appointed for that period of time to the post of head of the new authority. In that regard, Hungary cannot pray in aid the independence of the current head of the new authority, because that would require it to plead its own infringement in its defence. The effects of the infringement must be remedied, not maintained.
   According to the Commission, removal from office before time can only be justified by overriding and objectively verifiable reasons, but Hungary has not put forward any such reasons.
   The Commission does not dispute the right of Hungary to reorganise the supervisory authority, moving, for example, from the previous model of ‘data protection supervisor’ to a model consistent with Hungarian law in the form of an ‘authority’. However, the reform of the type of institution did not require in any way that the previous supervisory authority be removed from office. Hungary could have provided in its national legislation either that the new model should be applicable once the term of office of the data protection supervisor occupying the post had expired, or that the previous data protection supervisor should be appointed the first head of the new authority for the remainder of his term of office.
   According to the Commission, if the position of the Member State regarding the change of model were to be accepted, all authorities responsible for supervising data protection in the Union would be permanently exposed to the risk of removal from office through a legislative measure cancelling the existing authority and establishing a newly created authority in its place to carry out the functions set out in Directive 95/46. It cannot be ruled out that such reforms could be used to penalise and monitor the authorities responsible for supervising data protection which earn the disapproval of the political authorities. The slightest risk of such influence is incompatible with the total independence of the supervisory authorities.
   On the other hand, in the opinion of the Commission, Hungary cannot rely on vague statements by the previous data protection supervisor published in the press to presume that the latter was not prepared to fulfil the functions provided for by Article 28 of Directive 95/46, or to remove him from office before time on that basis.


title: Case C-674/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-753/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/14

         Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-753/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-674/16 P)
   (2017/C 144/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Guccio Gucci SpA (represented by: V. Volpi, P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office; Guess? IP Holder LP

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings;

               —

               order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By means of the present action Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (hereafter referred to as ‘Gucci’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber), in Case T-753/15 (the judgment under appeal”), whereby the General Court dismissed Gucci’s application against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of October 14, 2015, in Case R 1703/2014-4, which had reversed the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1, 2014 upholding Gucci’s opposition vis-à-vis the EU designation of International Registration No. 1090048, in class 9 (the ‘contested mark’), in the name of Guess? IP Holder L.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘Guess’).

               2.

               The present application is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the grounds of refusal set forth in Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 (1) of February 26, 2009 before amendment (hereafter referred to as the ‘CTM Regulation’) do not apply to the contested mark. In particular, the General Court clearly distorted the facts and evidence before it in the assessment of the similarity among the conflicting signs and, as a consequence, wrongly applied both Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation; and failed to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

               3.

               The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public … will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’, and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 32 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue.

               4.

               However, the above assumption is manifestly wrong. This appears obvious from the documents filed in the case which clearly show that the relevant public does perceive the capital letters ‘G’ in the contested mark, as per the results of a survey pool on the public perception of the contested mark submitted by Gucci. This obvious distortion of the facts and evidence affected the General Court’s assessment of Gucci’s application: had the General Court acknowledged that the relevant public — or at least a portion of said public — would perceive the contested mark as a combination of capital letters ‘G’, it could have not ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks and therefore the applicability of both Article 8(l)(b) and Article 8(5) CTM Regulation.

               5.

               Furthermore, the General Court infringed its duty to state reasons for its judgments, because it completely overlooked the above mentioned survey pool in its assessment, without providing any reasoning, not even implicitly, which makes it possible to understand why it disregarded this crucial piece of evidence.

               6.

               In light of the above, the Appellant requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment under appeal and order both the EUIPO and Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version)

      OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1


title: Case T-218/12: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014  — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratórios Delta (DELTA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DELTA — Earlier national and international figurative marks DELTA PORTUGAL and company name LABORATORIOS DELTA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratórios Delta (DELTA)
   (Case T-218/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DELTA - Earlier national and international figurative marks DELTA PORTUGAL and company name LABORATORIOS DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 372/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Micrus Endovascular LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Laboratórios Delta Lda (Queluz, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2012 (Case R 244/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratórios Delta Lda and Micrus Endovascular Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders Micrus Endovascular LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case C-682/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Berlioz Investment Fund S.A. v Directeur de l’administration des Contributions directes

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 December 2015 — Berlioz Investment Fund S.A. v Directeur de l’administration des Contributions directes
   (Case C-682/15)
   (2016/C 078/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Berlioz Investment Fund S.A.

      Respondent: Directeur de l’administration des Contributions directes

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Member State implementing EU law and thus rendering the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] applicable in accordance with Article 51(1) thereof in a situation such as that in the main proceedings when it imposes an administrative pecuniary penalty on a person on account of that person’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligations to cooperate pursuant to an order requiring him to provide information (‘information order’) made by the competent national authority of that State under national procedural rules introduced for that purpose, in the context of that Member State’s execution, in its capacity as the requested State, of a request for exchange of information from another Member State that is based by the latter State, inter alia, on the provisions of Directive 2011/16 (1) on the exchange of information on request?

               2.

               In the event that it is established that the Charter is applicable to the present case, can a person rely on Article 47 of the Charter if he takes the view that the aforementioned administrative pecuniary penalty imposed on him is designed to place him under an obligation to provide information in the context of the execution, by the competent authority of the requested Member State of which he is a resident, of a request for information from another Member State for which there is no justification as regards the actual fiscal aim, there being therefore no legitimate aim in the present case, and which is intended to obtain information that has no foreseeable relevance to the tax case concerned?

               3.

               In the event that it is established that the Charter is applicable to the present case, does the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as laid down by Article 47 of the Charter require — without the possibility of restrictions being imposed under Article 52(1) of the Charter — that the competent national court must have unlimited jurisdiction and accordingly the power to review, at least as a result of an objection, the validity of an information order made by the competent authority of a Member State in the execution of a request for exchange of information submitted by the competent authority of another Member State, inter alia, on the basis of Directive 2011/16 in an action brought by the third party holder of the information, to whom that information order is addressed, such action being directed against a decision imposing an administrative pecuniary penalty for that person’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation to cooperate in the context of the execution of that request?

               4.

               In the event that it is established that the Charter is applicable to the present case, are Articles 1(1) and 5 of Directive 2011/16, in the light, on the one hand, of the parallels with the standard of foreseeable relevance arising out of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and, on the other, of the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4 TEU, together forming the objective of Directive 2011/16, to be interpreted as meaning that the foreseeable relevance, in relation to the tax case referred to and to the stated fiscal purpose, of the information sought by one Member State from another Member State constitutes a condition which the request for information must satisfy in order to trigger an obligation on the part of the competent authority of the requested Member State to act on that request, and in order to justify an information order issued to a third party by that authority?

               5.

               In the event that it is established that the Charter is applicable to the present case, are the provisions of Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 2011/16, and Article 47 of the Charter to be interpreted as precluding a legal provision of a Member State that generally limits the examination by its competent national authority, acting as the authority of the requested State, of the validity of a request for information to a review as to whether the request is in order, and as requiring a national court seised of court proceedings such as those described in the third question above to verify, in the context of those court proceedings, that the condition of foreseeable relevance of the information requested has been satisfied in all its aspects regarding the links to the particular tax case in question, the stated fiscal purpose and compliance with Article 17 of Directive 2011/16?

               6.

               In the event that it is established that the Charter is applicable to the present case, does the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter preclude a legal provision of a Member State that precludes a request for information made by the competent authority of another Member State from being submitted to the competent national court of the requested State in court proceedings before it such as those described in the third question above; and does it require that document to be produced to the competent national court and access to it to be granted to the third party holding the information, or, indeed, that document to be produced to the national court without access to it being granted to the third party holding the information, owing to the confidential nature of that document, provided that any difficulties caused to the third party by a limitation on his rights are sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the competent national court?

      (1)  Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1).


title: Case C-222/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Roma, First Civil Division, by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and C.A.S.E.R. SpA

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen                          (a) the final measure of the public authorities is essentially
Käräjäoikeus by order of that court of 1 June 1999 in the                           an act confirming the independently expressed will of
case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki,                          the national councils of the associations concerned; or
             Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola
                          (Case C-214/99)                                      (b) the final measures of the public authorities essentially
                                                                                delegate to the members of the associations concerned
                                                                                the power to set the fee scale at their own discretion,
                          (1999/C 246/21)                                           even after the professional services requested of them
                                                                                have been performed; or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tampereen Kärä-
jäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, of 1 June 1999,                    (c) the final measures of the public authorities do not
which was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1999, for                        contain any indication of being in the public interest
a preliminary ruling in the case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v                         or any upper and longer limits with which the fee scale
Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki, Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola                      set at the practitioner’s discretion must comply; or
on the following question:
Is the prohibition referred to in Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty               (d) the final measures of the public authorities do not
applicable to an exclusive purchasing agreement concluded by                        require professionals to communicate in advance
a supplier of goods, which could be terminated by the retailer                      and/or publicise in any other way the fee scales which
at any time on one year’s notice, if all the exclusive purchasing                   they intend to apply for the services requested of them?
agreements concluded by that supplier have had a significant
influence on the partitioning of the market, either on their               3. Are the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 85 of the
own or together with the network of exclusive purchasing                       Treaty compatible with national legislation which, without
agreements concluded by all suppliers, but the agreements of                   requiring public interest considerations to be taken into
similar duration to the exclusive purchasing agreement in                      account, confers on a fee committee set up by the
question represent only a very small proportion of all the                     association council and composed solely of association
exclusive purchasing agreements of the same supplier, the                      members the power to adopt a discretionary measure
majority of which are fixed-term agreements which have been                    settling the fee, even where it confirms the fee set by the
concluded for a period of several years?                                       member at his own discretion, the force of which is such
                                                                               as to bind the court to make an order for payment in
                                                                               accordance with the measure adopted by the council itself
                                                                               settling the fee?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) by
order of that court of 6 May 1999 in the case of Giuseppe                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
                  Conte against Stefania Rossi                             di Roma, First Civil Division, by order of that court of 12
                                                                           May 1999 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and
                          (Case C-221/99)                                                            C.A.S.E.R. SpA
                          (1999/C 246/22)                                                           (Case C-222/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (1999/C 246/23)
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 6 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 9 June 1999, for a preliminary           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ruling in the case of Giuseppe Conte v Stefania Rossi on the               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Division
following questions:                                                       of the Corte d’Appello di Roma (Rome Court of Appeal) of 12
                                                                           May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 10
1. Is the concept of an ‘undertaking’ set out in the decisions             June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministero
     of the Commission and the case-law of the Court of Justice            delle Finanze and C.A.S.E.R. SpA, on the following questions:
     applicable to those carrying on a professional activity as
     architects and, if so, are architects’ professional associations
     to be regarded as ‘associations of undertakings’ within the           For the purposes of an action brought by a company before
     meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty?                               the Italian courts for the reimbursement of the tassa di
                                                                           concessione governativa (administrative charge) paid from 1985
2. Are the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 85 of the                 to 1992 under laws conflicting with Article 10 of Council
     Treaty compatible with a national rule which simply gives             Directive 69/335/EEC(1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     a fee scale drawn up and determined by the national                   taxes on the raising of capital (see the judgment of 20 April
     associations of engineers and architects the force of law             1993 in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91)(2),
     where:                                                                may Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 23 December 1998 which
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.8.1999
retroactively lays down the single charge of ITL 500 000 for               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
registration of the instrument constituting a company and                  Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — 3rd Sec-
various flat-rate charges for the registration of other company            tion — by order of that court of 26 November 1998 in
documents (varying from ITL 750 000 to ITL 90 000                          the case of Agorà s.r.l against Ente Autonomo Fiera
depending on the kind of company) be considered compatible                                    Internazionale di Milano
with the principles of Community law and with the interpret-
ation of the said directive given by the Court of Justice in its
judgment in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91?                                                      (Case C-223/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/24)
The foregoing question is asked in the light of the fact that the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
abovementioned provision (Article 11 of Law No 448 of                      European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
1998), although, because the amounts concerned are objec-                  tivo Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy Regional Adminis-
tively modest and the reference ex novo to the registration of             trative Court) — 3rd Section — of 26 November 1998,
company documents was, it seems, intended to refer to flat-rate            received at the Court Registry on 10 June 1999, for a
figures apparently commensurate with the cost of the service               preliminary ruling in the case of Agorà s.r.l v Ente Autonomo
(being duties paid by way of fees or dues: Article 12(1)(e) of             Fiera Internazionale di Milano on the following question:
Directive 335/69), was in fact adopted without any previous
determination or calculation of the costs of the service rendered
to the companies (costs which are easily determinable, because             May the definition of a body governed by public law contained
they relate to past years, on the basis of the number and                  in Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June
qualification of the officials, the time they take and the various         1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
material costs necessary for carrying out the transaction),                of public service contracts be deemed applicable to the Ente
without there being any significant link between the amounts               Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano?
levied and the service actually received by the companies
which had in fact paid a charge for registration and for annual
renewal thereof and not for the registration of company                    (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
documents on a flat-rate basis).
Regardless of whether the amounts levied by the Italian State
under Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 1998 rank as duties
paid by way of fees or dues, is the legally prescribed interest
payable by the State — in addition to the reimbursements to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
the companies — with effect, as specifically indicated in Article          van Beroep by order of 24 March 1999 in the case of
11(3), from the date of submission of the application for                             Soziale Verzekeringsbank v Y. Moughit
reimbursement and at an annual rate of 2.5%, which is lower
than the annual rates laid down generally for tax paid but not
                                                                                (Case C-225/99)
due by Articles 1 and 5 of Law No 29 of 19 January 1961
(and successive provisions) or, for other sums paid but not
due, by Article 2033 of the Civil Code, compatible with the                                        (1999/C 246/25)
principle of equivalence between the two systems (domestic
and Community) of law as regards the protection of individ-
uals’ rights and/or with the principle of effective exercise of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the rights conferred by Community law — both principles                    European Communities by order of 24 March 1999 from the
having been upheld repeatedly by the Court of Justice in its               Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),
judgments of 15 September 1998 in Case C-260/96 Spac,                      which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 1999, for
Case C-231/96 Edis and Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Soziale Verzekeringsbank v
and C-281/96(3) Ansaldo?                                                   Y. Moughit on the following question:
                                                                           Must ‘members of [Moroccan workers’] families’ within the
                                                                           meaning of Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement of 27
                                                                           April 1976 between the EC and Morocco (1) be understood as
(1) OJ, English special edition 1969(II), p. 412.                          including the single mother of a Moroccan worker who joined
(2) (1993) ECR I-1915.                                                     him for the purpose of residing with him after he had, as an
(3) (1998) ECR I-5025.                                                     adult, established himself in the territory of a Community
                                                                           Member State?
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26.9.1978, OJ 1978 L
                                                                               264, p. 1.