title: Case C-322/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA (Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC — Article 2(3) — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Article 2(5) — Obligation to depart from that principle — Article 32 — Valuation method based on historical cost — Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/34

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v GIMLE SA
   (Case C-322/12) (1)

   (Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC - Article 2(3) - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Article 2(5) - Obligation to depart from that principle - Article 32 - Valuation method based on historical cost - Purchase price manifestly lower than the real value)
   2013/C 344/58
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge

      Defendant: GIMLE SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 2(3), (4) and (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Principle that a true and fair view must be given — Acquisition price of assets not reflecting their real value and giving a distorted view of the company’s assets — Obligation to depart from the rule that assets are to be entered in the accounts at their acquisition cost and to recognise them immediately as having their resale value

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle that a true and fair view must be given, set out in Article 2(3) to (5) of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, does not permit the principle of valuation of assets on the basis of their acquisition price or their production cost, contained in Article 32 of that directive, to be departed from in favour of a valuation on the basis of their real value, where the acquisition price or the production cost of those assets is manifestly lower than their real value.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-363/02: Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 305/14               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,            The question in this case is identical to the question in Case
Piraeus by judgment of that Court of 28 June 2002 in the               C-361/02.
    case of Ellenikon Dimosion against Nikolaos Tsapalos
                         (Case C-361/02)
                         (2002/C 305/23)
                                                                       Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                Republic
European Communities by order of the Diikitiko Efetio
(Administrative Court of Appeal), Piraeus of 28 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 2002, for a                                          (Case C-363/02)
preliminary ruling in the case of Ellenikon Dimosion (Greek
State) against Nikolaos Tsapalos on the following question:
                                                                                (2002/C 305/25)
Is Article 1 of  Council Directive 76/308/EEC (1) to be interpret-
ed as meaning that the provisions of the directive also cover
claims which arose in a Member State before entry into force
of the directive under a document whose issuance by the                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
competent authorities of that State also predated entry into           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
force of the directive, such as the document issued by the             on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Italian authorities in the present case and that, accordingly,         Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
following the entry into force of the directive, the end of the        Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
relevant transitional period and compliance by the other
Member States with the duty to enact the provisions required
for application of the directive, recovery may henceforth lie,
on request to the competent authority by the applicant                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
authority as mentioned in Article 3 of the directive, in respect
of pending claims for which recovery had not hitherto been             —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
available in the other Member State?                                         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
                                                                             mission Directive 2001/8/EC of 8 February 2001 replac-
( 1) OJ L 73 of 19.3.1976.                                                   ing Annex I to Council Directive 92/109/EEC on the
                                                                             manufacture and placing on the market of certain sub-
                                                                             stances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs
                                                                             and psychotropic substances ( 1), the Portuguese Republic
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of the
                                                                             directive;
                                                                       —     In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,                  Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic
Piraeus by judgment of that Court of 28 June 2002 in                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of the
the case of Ellenikon Dimosion against Konstantinos                          directive;
                           Diamantakis
                                                                       —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-362/02)
                         (2002/C 305/24)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The period prescribed for transposition expired on 1 March
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 2001.
European Communities by order of the Diikitiko Efetio
(Administrative Court of Appeal), Piraeus of 28 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 2002, for a                (1 ) OJ 2001 L 39, p. 31.
preliminary ruling in the case of Ellenikon Dimosion (Greek
State) against Konstantinos Diamantakis on the following
question:


title: Case T-523/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Interkobo v OHIM — XXXLutz Marken (my baby) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark my baby — Earlier national and international word marks MYBABY and earlier national figurative mark mybaby — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings — Legitimate expectation — Rules 19(3), 20(1) and 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Interkobo v OHIM — XXXLutz Marken (my baby)
   (Case T-523/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark my baby - Earlier national and international word marks MYBABY and earlier national figurative mark mybaby - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Legitimate expectation - Rules 19(3), 20(1) and 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2012/C 243/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Interkobo sp. z o.o. (Łódź (Poland)) (represented by: R. Skubisz and K. Ziemski, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels (Austria)) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 88/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Interkobo sp. Z o.o. and XXXLutz Marken GmbH

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Interkobo sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-95/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jean Dehon against European Parliament

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/40

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Jean Dehon against European Parliament
   (Case T-95/05)
   (2005/C 106/81)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance on 14 February 2005 by Jean Dehon, residing at Hagen (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin M., Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 29 April 2004 appointing another person as deputy head of the French translation division;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant takes exception to the appointing authority's refusal to uphold his application for the post of deputy head of the French translation division. The candidate chosen was appointed following the publication of internal competition notice LA/113 (vacancy notice No 9192).
   In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 233 of the EC treaty, infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of the right to career development and failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons.
   Specifically, he contends that:

               —

               the contested appointment was made without any examination of the applicant's application;

               —

               the order of priority for the various procedures for filling posts, as provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, was not observed;

               —

               the absence of a decision regarding the applicant's application under the procedure for promotion/transfer is particularly serious since the procedure for filling the post in question had already been the subject of an annulling judgment in Case T-261/99 Dehon v Parliament. Compliance with that judgment involved restoring the situation to the position as it stood before the circumstances criticised by the Court came into being.


title: Case C-129/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) Administrative Division,by judgment of that court of 25 February 2004 inthe case Espace Trianon SA and Société wallonne de location-financement SA(SOFIBAIL) against the Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionelleet de l'emploi (FOREM)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) Administrative Division, by judgment of that court of 25 February 2004 in the case Espace Trianon SA and Société wallonne de location-financement SA (SOFIBAIL) against the Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionelle et de l'emploi (FOREM)
   (Case C-129/04)
   (2004/C 106/62)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium), Administrative Division, of the 25 February 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Espace Trianon SA and Société wallonne de location-financement SA (SOFIBAIL) against the Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionelle et de l'emploi (FOREM).
   The Conseil d'Etat (Belgium), Administrative Division, asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1)

               Does Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC on the Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works (1) contracts preclude a provision of national law, such as the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Laws of the Conseil d'Etat, consolidated on 12 January 1973, which is interpreted as requiring the members of a consortium without legal personality, which, as such, has participated in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract, to act together, in their capacity as associates or in their own names, in order to bring an action against the decision awarding the contract?

               2)

               Would the answer to Question 1 be different if the members of the consortium acted all together, but the action of one of its members is inadmissible?

               3)

               Does Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC on the Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts preclude a provision of national law, such as the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Laws of the Conseil d'Etat, consolidated on 12 January 1973, which is interpreted as prohibiting a member of such a consortium from bringing an action individually, either in its capacity as an associate, or in its own name, against the decision awarding the contract?

      (1)   OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.


title: Case C-454/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 30 October 2002 in the case of Karin Bautz against AOK Baden-Württemberg

text:
22.3.2003            EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-              in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber
hof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the                on the following questions:
case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
                 Engineering Services Limited                        1.     Is Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be inter-
                                                                            preted as precluding a Member State from making the
                       (Case C-450/02)                                      organisation of gambling subject to value added tax if it
                                                                            is exempt when organised by a licensed public casino?
                        (2003/C 70/01)
                                                                     2.     Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC prohibit a
                                                                            Member State from making the operation of a gaming
                                                                            machine subject to value added tax if the operation of a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      gaming machine by a licensed public casino is exempt, or
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                        must the game of chance machines operated outside
(Federal Finance Court) of 4 September 2002, received at the                casinos also be comparable for that purpose in essential
Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling                respects, for example as regards the maximum stake and
in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair              the maximum winnings, with the gaming machines in
Engineering Services Limited on the following question:                     the casinos?
                                                                     3.     Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Does the fact that a national employer but not a foreign hirer
of labour is exempt from the obligation to deduct income tax                exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
                                                                            388/EEC?
at source where a double taxation treaty provides that the
salary paid is to be exempt from income tax constitute an
infringement of Article 49 EC?                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
      Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber                    gericht by order of that Court of 30 October 2002 in the
                                                                         case of Karin Bautz against AOK Baden-Württemberg
                       (Case C-453/02)
                                                                                (Case C-454/02)
                        (2003/C 70/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling         European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/2                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
(Federal Social Court) of 30 October 2002, received at the             2.    Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary                        exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
ruling in the case of Karin Bautz against AOK (Allgemeine                    388/EEC?
Ortskrankenkasse — General Local Health Insurance Fund)
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is it compatible with the provisions of Articles 49 and 50
     EC for a Member State which has organised its sickness
     insurance system in accordance with the principle of
     benefits in kind, and which provides outpatient medical
     care through authorised medical practitioners, to permit
     the reimbursement of the cost of consulting unauthorised          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     medical practitioners — also where treatment is provided          gericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 December
     in another Member State — only if treatment correspond-           2002 in the administrative-law proceedings between Inan
     ing to the generally accepted state of medical knowledge                     Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg
     is not available under the system of benefits in kind?
                                                                                (Case C-467/02)
2.   If this is deemed to be an inadmissible impediment to the
     freedom to provide services, do the aforementioned                                          (2003/C 70/05)
     provisions of the EC Treaty permit German law to make
     the reimbursement of the cost of privately obtained
     medical services conditional — except in emergencies —
     on a prior application being made for a decision by the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sickness insurance fund as to entitlement to extra-               European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
     contractual treatment?                                            Stuttgart (Administrative Court) of 19 December 2002,
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2002, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the administrative-law proceedings
                                                                       between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       1.    Does a child born in Germany to a Turkish worker who
                                                                             belongs to the regular labour force fall within the scope
                                                                             of Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                             Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                      development of the Association (‘Decision No 1/80’)
hof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the                         where from his birth to at least the time he attained the
  case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis                      age of majority his residence was permitted initially solely
                                                                             for the reason of family unity or, where his residence
                                                                             permit was temporary, was not terminated solely for that
                        (Case C-462/02)                                      reason?
                                                                       2.    Is Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 the only basis upon
                         (2003/C 70/04)                                      which the right of a family member to access to the
                                                                             employment market and to an extension of residence
                                                                             under the second indent of Article 7(1) may be limited?
                                                                       3.    Does the imposition of three years’ juvenile sentence
                                                                             constitute the definitive removal of the person concerned
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             from the labour force such that he loses his rights under
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                             the second indent of Article 7(1) even if there is a real
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                             possibility that only part of the sentence will require to
Court Registry on 23 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             be served, albeit that if released early on licence the
in the case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis
                                                                             person will be required to submit to treatment for drug
on the following questions:
                                                                             abuse and during the period of that treatment will not be
                                                                             available for employment on the market?
1.   Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1) prohibit
     a Member State from making the organisation of a card             4.    Where it results from a short period of imprisonment
     game subject to value added tax solely if the organisation              which is not suspended for probation, does the loss of a
     of a card game by a licensed public casino is exempt, or                job or, where the person concerned is unemployed, the
     must card games organised outside casinos also be                       impossibility of applying for a job constitute voluntary
     comparable for that purpose in essential respects, for                  unemployment within the meaning of the second sen-
     example as regards the game rules, the maximum stake                    tence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 and therefore
     and the maximum winnings, with card games in the                        not prevent the loss of the rights conferred by Article 6(1)
     casinos?                                                                and Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80?


title: Case C-347/99: Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 333/19
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Com-                           Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French                    mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                              Republic                                                          Duchy of Luxembourg
                          (Case C-345/99)                                                           (Case C-346/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/41)
                          (1999/C 333/40)
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of                ties on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of the
the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa,                 European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
Legal Adviser, and Hélène Michard, of its Legal Service, acting           wright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.             as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
— declare that, by applying to vehicles used by taxable                   — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     persons carrying on the activity of driving instructors the              administrative measures necessary in order to comply
     condition that, in order for such persons to be able to                  with Commission Directive 96/65/EC of 11 October 1996
     exercise their right to deduct the VAT charged on their                  adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council
     initial acquisition of those vehicles, the vehicles in question          Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     must be used exclusively for that activity, the French                   regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                      States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May                   of dangerous preparations and modifying Directi-
     1977 (1);                                                                ve 91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging
                                                                              of which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings (1),
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 or by failing in any event to inform the Commission of the
                                                                              measures adopted, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                              failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive authorises Member States
to retain all the exclusions relating to the deductibility of tax         Pleas in law and main arguments
provided for under their national laws on the date of entry
into force of that directive. On the date in question, the French         On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely
legislation excluded from deduction all private vehicles, with            31 May 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not yet
the sole exception of vehicles used for public passenger                  implemented the provisions necessary to comply with the
transport.                                                                directive.
With effect from 1 January 1993, the French legislation                   (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 15.
introduced a right of deduction in respect of vehicles used for
driving instruction purposes. However, that right is restricted
to vehicles used exclusively for that activity.
According to Article 17(2) of the directive, the right to deduct
must arise where the goods concerned are used by the taxable
person for the purposes of his taxable transactions; that right           Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-
cannot be restricted to goods used exclusively for the activity              mission of the European Communities against Ireland
in question.
                                                                                (Case C-347/99)
A Member State may not establish its own criteria for
application of the deduction by limiting the scope of a national                                    (1999/C 333/42)
exclusion of the right to deduct.
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities on 20 September 1999
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17.5.1977 (OJ L 145 of                by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    13.6.1977, p. 1.)                                                     by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/20              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
                                                                       Bremen by order of that court of 25 August 1999 in
— declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or           the case of Wolfgang Lange against Georg Schünemann
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                              GmbH
    Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uni-
    form procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
    goods by road (1), or in any event by failing to inform the                                (Case C-350/99)
    Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
    its obligations under that Directive;                                                      (1999/C 333/44)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                                                                       Court), Bremen of 25 August 1999, received at the Court
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           Registry on 22 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,         the case of Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH on
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           the following questions:
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January           1. Does Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of
1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary               14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of             employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or
the Commission.                                                            employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) also
                                                                           apply to agreements by the employee pursuant to which
(1) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35.                                           he undertakes in general terms to work overtime?
                                                                       2. Under Article 2 thereof is a national law transposing
                                                                           Directive 91/533 to be interpreted so as to render agree-
                                                                           ments invalid from a substantive point of view as well,
                                                                           where they not only lack the precision required thereby
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-                            but also confer on the employer vaguely formulated
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                      unilateral rights?
                     Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                       3. (a) In order to ensure an interpretation in conformity
                        (Case C-348/99)                                         with EC law, does Directive 91/533 require national
                                                                                principles, under which a party not complying with its
                        (1999/C 333/43)
                                                                                obligations to provide documentation is deemed to
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             have frustrated the production of evidence, to be
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    applied also where an employer has failed to provide
ties on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the                              information pursuant to Directive 91/533?
European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,
Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a national civil servant               (b) If Question 3(a) is answered in the negative, are
on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                   national principles of law precluded under the third
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                       indent of Article 6 of Directive 91/533 from being
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    applied in the manner described at (a) above?
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council on the legal protection of databases (1), the Grand
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Council of
    under that directive;                                              the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       19 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                Instance of the European Communities in case T-14/98 (1)
                                                                       between Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parlia-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ment, supported by the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                       Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely                        Union, supported by the French Republic
1 January 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not
adopted the measures necessary in order to comply with the                                    (Case C-353/99 P)
directive, and had not communicated to the Commission the
wording of the domestic legislation adopted to that end.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/45)
(1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 July 1999 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Action brought on 10 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-401/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 397/27
The Commission considers that that system, resulting                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
from the legislation in force, is capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-
Community trade in petroleum products.                              Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                    upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                    Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty,
It contends, furthermore, that the Hellenic Republic
                                                                    Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
cannot rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                    whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
justification. A Member State may invoke Article 36 in
                                                                    obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
order to justify a measure having equivalent effect to a
                                                                    action taken by thge institutions of the Community. The
quantitative restriction on imports only if no other
                                                                    abovementioned provisions require the Member States to
measure, less restrictive from the point of the view of the
                                                                    make their legislation consistent with Community
free movement of goods, is capable of achieving the same
                                                                    directives within the periods which those directives lay
objective. The objective of maintaining security of supply,
                                                                    down. A Member State may not invoke provisions,
which the Greek authorities state is the objective pursued
                                                                    practices or circumstances existing in its legal order in
by them, can be achieved by measures which are less
                                                                    order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and
restrictive of the free movement of goods.
                                                                    time-limits laid down by Community directives. It is not
                                                                    disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                    measures to comply with Directive 94/47/EC. The time-
The Commission thus considers that the contested Greek              limit laid down by Article 12 of that directive expired on
legislation constitutes a measure which has equivalent              29 April 1997 without the Hellenic Republic having
effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Article 30        adopted the laws, regulations and administrative
of the Treaty, and cannot be justified on any of the                provisions necessary to comply with the directive or
grounds set out in Article 36 of the Treaty, and in                 having notified them to the Commission.
particular not on the basis of security of supply.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Action brought on 10 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                          Removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (1)
                           Republic                                                         (98/C 397/48)
                        (Case C-401/98)
                         (98/C 397/47)                              By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (reference for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey):
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    Emidio Marco Rios v. His Excellency the Lieutenant
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    Governor of Jersey.
on 10 November 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (1)
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                                   (98/C 397/49)
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
     the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (reference for a
     relating to the pourchase of the right to use
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the Sù- og Handelsret): 3Com
     immovable properties on a timeshare basis, or by not
                                                                    Corporation v. Bluecom Danmark A/S and KISS Nordic
     notifying them to the Commission, the Hellenic
                                                                    A/S.
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations udner that
     directive;
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-173/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Common organisation of the market for milk and milk products — Commission decision prohibiting aid to acquire milk quotas)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-173/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 - Common organisation of the market for milk and milk products - Commission decision prohibiting aid to acquire milk quotas)
   (2004/C 300/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-173/02: application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 13 May 2002 between Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) and Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J.L. Buendía Sierra) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and S.von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 169 du 13.7.2002.


title: Case C-140/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Cohesion Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Existence of a time limit — Non-compliance with the time limit laid down — Consequences)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/17

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-140/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Procedure of adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time limit - Non-compliance with the time limit laid down - Consequences))
   (2016/C 419/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 December 1995 in Case T-72/94: Komninos Diamantaras v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Expatriation allowance - No habitual residence in the State in which the official is employed - Article 4 (1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials)

text:
No C 31 / 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs.                              Commission's decision of 13 January 1994 refusing the
                                                                         applicant financial support under the 1993 Thermie
t 1 ) OJ No C 172 , 23 . 6 . 1993 and OJ No C 209 , 3 . 8 . 1993 .       programme and for a direction to the Council to take a new
                                                                         decision — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
                                                                         composed of H. Kirschner, acting as President,
                                                                         A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 13 December 1995 , in which it :
                         ( Third Chamber)                                1 . dismisses the action ;
                     of 13 December 1995
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
in Case T-85/94 ( 122 ): Commission of the European
           Communities v. Eugénio Branco Lda ( 1 )                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
(European Social Fund — Reduction in financial assistance
initially granted — Statement of reasons — Proceedings
         seeking to have a default judgment set aside)
                             ( 96/C 31 /41
                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                 of 14 December 1995
                                                                         in Case T-72/94 : Komninos Diamantaras v. Commission of
In Case T-85/94 ( 122 ): Commission of the European                                         the European Communities ( 1 )
Communities ( Agents : Francisco de Sousa Fialho and
Horstpeter Kreppel ) v. Eugenio Branco Lda , having its                  (Officials — Expatriation allowance — No habitual
registered office in Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior,             residence in the State in which the official is employed —
of the Bar of Vila Nova de Gaia , with an address for service            Article 4 (1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder,                                                      officials)
6 Rue Heine — application for the setting aside of the                                                ( 96/C 31 /43 )
judgment given by default by the Court of First Instance on
12 January 1995 in Case T-85/94 Branco v. Commission                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
[ 1995 ] ECR 11-45 — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as President,                 In Case T-72/94 : Komninos Diamantaras, an official of the
C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has              Commission of the European Communities, residing in
given a judgment on 13 December 1995 , in which it:                      Brussels, represented by Athanassios D. Damis and Nikos
                                                                         E. Stavropoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
 1 . dismisses the Commission 's application to have the                 service in Luxembourg, care of Emmanuel Kaïlis, 14 Rue
      judgment of 12 January 1995 set aside;                             Julien Vasque, Gasperich, v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) — application,
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              first, for the annulment of the decision of the Commission,
                                                                         communicated to the applicant by administrative note dated
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                       22 February 1993 , refusing him the expatriation allowance,
                                                                         and, second, for an order requiring the Commission to pay
                                                                         the said allowance from the date of the applicant's entry into
                                                                         the service of the Commission — the Court of First Instance
                                                                         ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 R. Schintgen and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                     of 13 December 1995                                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in
                                                                         which it :
in Case T-109/94: Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co.
Betriebs KG v. Commission of the European                                 1 . annuls the decision of the Commission, communicated
                           Communities C )                                      by note of 22 February 1 993 , refusing the applicant the
 (Financial support in the energy sector — Thermie                              expatriation allowance;
programme — Obligation to state reasons — Opinion ofthe
        committee — Right to a hearing — Discretion)                     2 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums
                                                                                corresponding to that allowance from 1 November
                              { 96/C 31 /42 )
                                                                                1 992 , less the payments already made to him by way of
                                                                                expatriation allowance, together with default interest at
                (Language of the case: German)                                  the annual rate of 8% from the dates when those sums
                                                                                respectively fell due until actual payment thereof;
 In Case T-109/94 : Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co .
 Betriebs KG, established at Groothusen-Krummhörn                         3 . orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
 ( Germany ), represented by Professor Detlef Schumacher,
 Bremen, and Benno Grunewald, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen v.                     f 1 ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Jürgen
 Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1997 in Case T-108/96: Mireille Cesarotto v. European Parliament (Officials - Article 41 of the Staff Regulations - Action for annulment of a decision rejecting a request for assignment of non-active status)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/31
Group of the European Parliament, residing at                        Lorenz) — application for annulment of the decision of
Gottmadingen ( Germany ), represented by Lucas Vogel and             the Parliament of 28 November 1995 rejecting a request
Gisele Stépanian, both of the Brussels Bar, and, at the              by the applicant for the assignment to her of non-active
hearing, by Beatrice Gribomont, of the Brussels Bar, with            status within the meaning of Article 41 of the Staff
an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of              Regulations of officials of the European Communities —
Christian Kremer, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the                the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:
European Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Arnaldo              R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Pinto ) — application for the annulment of the decision of           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July
the European Parliament refusing to pay the applicant Bfrs           1997, in which it:
124 120 by way of compensation for 19,5 days of leave
allegedly not taken at the time of his departure, following
the termination of his contract as a member of the                   1 . dismisses the application;
temporary staff — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President                2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
11 July 1997, in which it:
1 . annuls the Parliament's decision of 26 February 1996
     in so far as it considers that the applicant's absence
     during the period between 14 and 23 September 1994
     was unauthorized;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 July 1997
2 . orders the Parliament to pay Mr Schoch compensation
     corresponding to nine days of leave not taken, the                      in Case T- 123/95 : B v. European Parliament (^
     amount to be determined in accordance with the
                                                                     (Temporary staff — Engagement on the basis of
     second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff           Article 2 (b) of the Conditions of Employment of other
     Regulations. Interest on arrears is to be paid in respect       servants of the European Communities — Termination of
     of that sum at the rate of 8% per annum as from                 employment pursuant to Article 47 (2) (a) of the
     8 March 1 996 until the date of actual payment;                 Conditions of Employment of other servants — Breach of
                                                                     essential procedural requirements — Compliance with a
3 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                      properly introduced internal procedure — Statement of
                                                                          reasons for the decision terminating the employment)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/69 )
4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T-123/95 : B, a former member of the temporary
                                                                     staff of the European Parliament, residing at Messina
                                                                     ( Italy), represented by Jean Noel Louis, of the Brussels
                                                                     Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the Reggio di Calabria Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
                          of 11 July 1997                            European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Antonio
                                                                     Caiola ) — application for annulment of the decision
in Case T-108/96:           Mireille Cesarotto v.    European        terminating the applicant's contract of employment and
                           Parliament (M
                                                                     for compensation for the various types of damage
(Officials — Article 41 of the Staff Regulations — Action            allegedly suffered by him as a result of such termination
for annulment of a decision rejecting a request for                  — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed
               assignment of non-active status)                      of: A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
                                                                     Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                            97/C 252/68 )                            has given a judgment on 14 July 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)                       1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-108/96 : Mireille Cesaratto, an official of the            2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand Burg, of the Luxembourg                (') OJ No C 229, 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Gaston Vogel, 42 Boulevard Joseph II, v.
European Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Norbert


title: Case C-267/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Republic of Latvia v European Commission

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/17

         Appeal brought on 30 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Republic of Latvia v European Commission
   (Case C-267/11 P)
   2011/C 226/32
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and I. Rubene)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal.

               —

               Order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The single ground of appeal is based on a failure to respect the three-month time-limit laid down in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC. (1)

   The Commission considers that, in its analysis, the General Court treated the first and second sentences of Article 9(3) as one and, consequently, that its interpretation is not in line with the objectives laid down in that paragraph.
   That interpretation of Article 9(3) of the directive is contrary to the interpretation which the General Court adopted in another case, in which it rightly considered that the second sentence of Article 9(3) constituted a separate legal basis.
   In its interpretation of Article 9(3) of the directive, the Commission relies on the literal wording of the provision, which is fully in line with the objective pursued by that provision. Consequently, if the Commission rejects the national allocation plan notified by a Member State, the latter will be required to amend that plan taking account of the Commission's objections and will not be able to execute the plan until the Commission has approved the amendments, for which there is no time-limit.
   The Commission notes that the contested decision was a decision on the amendments to the national allocation plan and not on the notified national allocation plan itself.
   However, given that the General Court did not consider that the second sentence of Article 9(3) of the directive established a different procedure, it found itself required to consider the notified amendments as notification of a new national allocation plan and, as a result, required to apply the three-month time-limit incorrectly.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case C-87/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-85/10 Alfa Acciai v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/21

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Alfa Acciai SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-85/10 Alfa Acciai v Commission
   (Case C-87/15 P)
   (2015/C 146/29)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Alfa Acciai SpA (represented by: D.M. Fosselard, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor, and A. Duron, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal for the reasons indicated below; and

               —

               giving a final ruling pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, annul the contested decision to the extent that it concerns the appellant;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event of a finding by the Court that there are no grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant for the reasons set out below;

               —

               in the further alternative, in the event that the Court does not give a final ruling on the case, reserve the costs and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               lastly, pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:
   By the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 10 of Regulation No 773/2004. (1) In particular, the General Court held that the Commission was entitled to readopt the decision contested in the proceedings at first instance (‘the contested decision’) without first having to issue a new statement of objections.
   By the second ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed Article 14 of Regulation No 773/2004 in ruling that the Commission was entitled to readopt the contested decision on the basis of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) without giving the Member States’ representatives the possibility of hearing the undertakings directly.
   By the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the principle of collegiality. The General Court held that the Commission was entitled to adopt the contested decision following a procedure in the course of which the College did not adopt the whole contested decision on a specific date, but instead adopted it in two parts on two different dates on the understanding that, together, those two parts could constitute a full decision.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’), as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), in so far as the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard within a reasonable time. Specifically, approximately three years elapsed between the closure of the written procedure and the General Court’s decision to open the oral procedure. A delay on that scale amounted to an infringement of the right, referred to in Article 47 of the Charter, to an effective remedy and an infringement of the right to be heard within a reasonable time. The infringement of Article 47 of the Charter is particularly serious in the circumstances, in view of the fact that the appellant had to wait more than 14 years for a court (the General Court) to resolve the dispute on the merits, the Commission’s initial decision having been annulled on procedural grounds after a procedure lasting around seven years.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. In particular, the appellant argues that the General Court disregarded the specific context of the ECSC Treaty and the duties of disclosure and non-discrimination imposed on undertakings in the context of that treaty, thereby misapplying the case-law of the Court relating to cartels. The appellant submits that the repeated publication over time of price lists not in alignment with the price proposed in the context of the cartel in question has had the effect of interrupting the concerted practice adopted by that cartel, whose objective was, according to the General Court, to fix minimum prices. Instead, the General Court held that it was necessary for the appellant to distance itself publicly even further.
   By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, as interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the Convention, when it found that the length of the administrative procedure (that is to say, the procedure before the European Commission) was not excessive for the purposes of those provisions. In the present case, the administrative procedure took, in total, almost 54 months, including the initial procedure and the subsequent re-adoption procedure. In addition, the two or more years which were necessary for the Commission to readopt the contested decision appear excessive. The grounds stated by the General Court as justification for the length of the re-adoption procedure appear inadequate and contradictory, besides being manifestly inconsistent with the previous case-law of the General Court.
   By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of equal treatment. In particular, the Commission had subdivided the undertakings into groups in order to determine the basic fine to be applied to each undertaking, attempting — according to the contested decision — to maintain a proportionate relationship between the average market share of each group and the basic fine imposed on the individual undertakings belonging to that group. Although it subsequently acknowledged that the Commission had underestimated the average market share of one of those groups, with the result that the relationship of proportionality which the Commission had meant to maintain had not been maintained, the General Court did not find it necessary to re-establish that relationship.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-78/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the case of the Greek State against Maria Karageorgou

text:
C 169/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.7.2002
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      1.   Is it possible to characterise as VAT, within the meaning
                                                                                of the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/
                         (Third Chamber)                                         EEC) (1), the amount mentioned on an invoice by a person
                                                                                who provides services to the State as a salaried employee,
                                                                                when the person providing those services mistakenly
                         of 30 April 2002                                        considers that he is providing services to the State as a
                                                                                self-employed person whilst, in reality, he is an employee
in Case C-181/01 P: N v Commission of the European                               and, on the recommendation of his employer, charges
                          Communities (1)                                        VAT on the invoices issued by him and not on his total
                                                                                earnings received from the State, which in law constitute
(Appeal — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the                        the tax basis of assessment to VAT, subsequently collected
Staff Regulations — Definition of ‘accident’ — Refusal to                        from his earnings, but where the amount thereof is
            recognise HIV infection as an accident)                              determined on the earnings by means of an internal
                                                                                deduction method and the earnings are regarded as
                          (2002/C 169/24)                                        containing the amount of VAT owed, while the State
                                                                                reduces the amount of legitimate earnings paid to that
                                                                                person by the element of VAT they are calculated to
                    (Language of the case: French)                               contain?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           2.   Can there be a departure from the formal principle
                                                                                governing the tax as set out in Article 21(1)(c) of the
                                                                                Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (that is to say, where
                                                                                VAT is mentioned on the invoice or other document
In Case C-181/01 P: N, an official of the Commission of                          serving as an invoice, such tax is payable to the State),
the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium),                        where the State, in performing that activity in pursuance
represented by G. Durazzo, — appeal against the judgment of                      of its public authority, is under Article 4(5) of the above
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                       directive not subject to tax, so as to render the mechanism
Case T-2/00 N v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-37 and II-                          of deductions inapplicable thereto, and the said tax
135, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party                    cannot be and is not passed on to the end consumer
to the proceedings being the Commission of the European                          (namely, the individual who contracts with the State for
Communities, (Agent: J. Currall): — the Court (Third Chamber),                   the translation of documents), the provider of services
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                        being entitled to reimbursement of the tax paid to the tax
mann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; Advocate                         authority after deduction of any input tax in order to
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order                   avoid the State’s enrichment as a result thereof?
on 30 April 2002, in which:
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
2.    N is ordered to bear the costs.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal
                                                                            hof by order of that Court of 22 November 2001 in
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the
                                                                            the case of Finanzamt Gummersbach against Gerhard
    case of the Greek State against Maria Karageorgou
                                                                                Bockemühl
                           (Case C-78/02)
                                                                                (Case C-90/02)
                          (2002/C 169/25)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Greek State against Maria Karageorgou on the following                      European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
questions:                                                                  (Federal Finance Court) of 22 November 2001, received at the


title: Case T-132/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark popchrono — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — IR v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)
   (Case T-132/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark popchrono - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 144/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IR (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Malte Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2015 (Case R 217/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Mr IR.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr IR to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di Venezia by order of that court of 3 November 1995 in the cases of Federica Maso and Others and Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Case C-373/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 16/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                             accrued before dismissal where a different benefit
circondariale di Venezia by order of that court of                              ( namely the mobility allowance provided for by
3 November 1995 in the cases of Federica Maso and Others                        Articles 4 and 16 of Italian Law No 223 of 23 July 1991 )
and Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto nazionale                          covers the needs of workers remaining employed during
                 délia previdenza sociale (INPS )                               the months following dismissal ?
                           ( Case C-3 73/95 )
                                                                         4 . Must the expression 'the last three months of the
                              ( 96/C 16/23 )
                                                                                contract of employment' in Article 4 ( 2 ) be interpreted
                                                                                as the 'last three calendar months ' or 'three months
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Pretura                                    preceding the termination of the employment
circondariale di Venezia ( District Magistrates' Court,                         relationship, even if this occurred on a date occurring
Venice ) of 3 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry                    some time during the month'.
on 29 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases
of Federica Maso and Others and Graziano Gazzetta and                    ( J ) Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v .
                                                                               Italian State ( 1991 ) ECR 1-5357.
Others v. Istituto Nazionale délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS
                                                                         (2 ) OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .
— National Social Welfare Institution ) on the following
questions:
1 . can the system of the EC Treaty, as described in the
     judgment in Francovich and Others v. Italian State f 1 ),
     concerning the liability to individuals of a Member State           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     which has breached Community obligations be                         Genova, Sezione prima civile, by order of that court of
     interpreted as being compatible with a domestic rule                16 November 1995 in the case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio
     ( Article 2 ( 7 ) in conjunction with Article 2 (4 ) of Italian             SRL v . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
     Legislative Decree No 80 of 27 January 1992 ), which                                             Case C-3 76/95 )
     reduces ex post facto the amount of the compensation
     for damage which has already occurred ?                                                           ( 96/C 16/24 )
2 . Does the expression 'onset of insolvency' in the first               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     indent of Article 3 (2 ) and the first indent of Article 4 (2 )     European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     of Directive 80/987 ( 2 ) correspond to the date on which           Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
     the request was made for insolvency proceedings to be               Civil Section ) of 16 November 1995 , received at the Court
     opened or to the date on which such proceedings opened              Registry on 4 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
     ( both of which are mentioned in Article 2 )?                       case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio SRL v. Amministrazione
                                                                         delle Finanze dello Stato on questions identical to those in
3 . Can Article 4 ( 3 ) and Article 10 of the Directive be               Joined Cases C-47/95 and others ( M.
     interpreted as meaning that the Member State may
     preclude the payment of employment claims which                      (!) See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the
                        of 23 November 1995                               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener, v.
in Case T-64/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                      European Communities (')                            Gianluigi Valsesia and Denis Waelbroeck and, in the oral
 (Officials — Occupational disease — Partial permanent                    proceedings, Alexandre Vandencasteele ) — application for
invalidity — Principle of sound management and good                       the annulment of the decision of the Commission of
 administration — Duty to provide assistance — Misuse of                   15 March 1993 rejecting the application for recognition of
              powers — Action for compensation)                           an occupational disease suffered by the applicant and for an
                               ( 96/C 16/25 )                             award of damages by way of compensation for the material
                                                                          and non-material damage allegedly suffered by him — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                  (Language of the case: French)                          Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
                                                                          Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                          23 November 1 995 , in which it:
 In Case T-64/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities, residing in                       1 , dismisses the action;


title: Case T-207/96: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Van Rossum v Council and Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/29

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Van Rossum v Council and Commission
   (Case T-207/96) (1)

   2011/C 204/52
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.


title: Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission

text:
                  28.11.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 441/28

         Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15,  U (*1) v Commission
         (Case T-695/16 P)
         (2016/C 441/33)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A.-C. Simon, F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

            Other parties to the proceedings:  U (*1) and European Parliament

            Form of order sought by the appellant

         The appellant claims that the Court should:

                     —

                     set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15,  U (*1)
                         v Commission;

                     —

                     as regards the proceedings at first instance, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that the state of proceedings permitted it to give final judgment, dismiss the action as unfounded and order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;

                     —

                     as regards the appeal proceedings, order the parties to bear their own costs relating to those proceedings.

            Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

                     1.

                     First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, infringement of the obligation to state reasons, and infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, in relation to paragraphs 53 to 56, 60 and 75 to 78 of the judgment under appeal.

                     2.

                     Second ground of appeal, alleging several errors of law in the interpretation of Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in relation to paragraphs 31, 57 to 60, and 61 to the first sentence of paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal.

                     3.

                     Third ground of appeal, alleging several errors of law and infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in relation to paragraphs 65 and 67 to 79 of the judgment under appeal.

            (*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.