title: Case T-430/03: Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/37
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated             Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Iosif Dascalu
      4 September 2003, notified to the applicant on 11 Sep-             against the Commission of the European Communities
      tember 2003, rejecting his complaint R/173/03;
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated                                      (Case T-430/03)
      24 November 2003, notified to the applicant on
      10 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/438/03;
                                                                                (2004/C 47/70)
—     Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
      ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
      possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      applicant’s career in grade;
—     Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
      ings.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Iosif
                                                                       Dascalu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                       bourg.
Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations the classification
of officials who used remedies within the meaning of Article 91
of the Staff Regulations. Following that exercise, the Com-            —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
mission adopted the contested decision in respect of the appt.              23 December 2002, in so far as it did not award the
                                                                            applicant additional seniority and therefore reclassified
                                                                            him in Grade A6, Step 1, instead of Grade A6, Step 3;
In support of his action, the applicant claims, as regards
additional seniority, that there has been a breach of the              —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
Commission decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983                    14 April 2003, in so far as it:
on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to
classification in step on recruitment, a breach of Article 5(3)
of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the principle of equal                —     did not fix the applicant’s classification in Grade A6,
treatment and, last, a breach of Article 25(2) of the Staff                       Step 3 upon recruitment;
Regulations and of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                            —     did not reconstruct the applicant’s career in grade
                                                                                by bringing forward the date of his promotions
The applicant further claims that the contested decision                          to A5 and A4;
breaches the principle that an official should have reasonable
career prospects and Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations in that the decision does not reconstruct his career            —     limited the date on which the reclassification
in grade.                                                                         decision took effect as regards its pecuniary effects
                                                                                to 5 October 1995.
Last, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             —    Order the defendant to pay compensation set provision-
Article 62 of the Staff Regulations in that the Commission                  ally at a sum of EUR 125 000 in case, against all
limited the pecuniary effects of the contested decision to                  possibility, it should not be able to reconstruct the
5 October 1995.                                                             applicant’s career in grade;
                                                                       —    Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
                                                                            ings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the selection board in competition
The applicant, who was classified in Grade A7, Step 3, upon                     COM/TB/99 to award the applicant an insufficient mark
entering the service of the Commission in September 1986,                       in the oral test to allow him to be entered on the reserve
challenges the decision of the appointing authority, adopted                    list;
following a reconsideration of that classification following the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v             —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission, to reclassify him in Step 1 of Grade A6, instead
of Step 3 of that grade, and revising and setting at new dates
his subsequent classification in Grade A5, Step 2, and A4,
Step 2, and limiting the pecuniary effects of that reclassification
to 5 October 1995.                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance on
In support of his claims, action, the applicant claims that the
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Case T-364/00 Van Weyenbergh, the
Commission has breached:
                                                                          applicant in the present case, as in Case T-161/01, objects to
                                                                          the decision of the selection board in competition COM/TB/
—     the decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 in                99 constituting a reserve list of administrative assistants,
      so far as it omitted to grant the applicant the slightest           senior administrative assistants and principal administrative
      seniority in step, and also Article 5(3) of the Staff               assistants, in Grades B5/B4, B3/B2 and B1 respectively, not to
      Regulations in so far as the Commission applied to the              enter him on the reserve list in that competition on the ground
      applicant a different outcome from that of officials in the         that he was awarded an insufficient mark in the oral test.
      same category;
—     Articles 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations by refusing           In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a
      to reconstruct his career in grade following his reclassifi-        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and proper
      cation in Grade A6, and breach of the duty to have regard           administration and also a manifest error of assessment.
      to the welfare of officials;
—     Article 62 of the Staff Regulations by limiting in time the         The applicant criticises the method used by the selection board
      pecuniary effects of his reclassification.                          to assess his knowledge of languages and claims, in particular,
                                                                          that he was unable to ascertain whether the questions put
                                                                          during the oral test correspond to the level of the competition
                                                                          B5/B4, B3/B2 or B1.
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O’Bra-
daigh against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon
                                                                                against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-431/03)
                                                                                (Case T-432/03)
                          (2004/C 47/71)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Liam                          on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon, residing in Hagen
O’Bradaigh, residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by                (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne             Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-93/02: Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel against Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/23
Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Confédération                         In the alternative, the applicant claims that, assuming that aid
Nationale du Crédit Mutuel against Commission of the                     was granted, it cannot be deemed to be existing aid pursuant
                    European Communities                                 to Article 15(3) of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)
                          (Case T-93/02)
                                                                         Pursuant to Article 15 of that regulation, the Commission
                                                                         has been barred from recovering aid since 1985 and the
                         (2002/C 131/43)                                 Commission has infringed the general principle of Community
                                                                         law which requires it to adopt a decision within a reasonable
                                                                         period. Moreover, the contested decision does not contain any
                   (Language of the case: French)                        evidence that the aid was in existence when the Livret Bleu
                                                                         was set up, which is a logical and legal condition which must
                                                                         be met if aid is to be described as new.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Confédération                   Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, Article 253 of the EC
Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, established in Paris, represented            Treaty and the principle of sound administration, impartiality
by Alexandre Carnelutti, lawyer.                                         and fairness.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                             down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of                Treaty (OJ L 83, 1999, p. 1).
      15 January 2002 declaring incompatible with the com-
      mon market state aid implemented by the French Repub-
      lic in favour of Crédit Mutuel;
—     in the alternative, annul Article 2 thereof in so far as it
      orders recovery of the aid identified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 March 2002 by Hugh McBryan
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
The Livret Bleu is a tax-free savings product intended for the                                     (Case T-96/02)
general public the tax advantage of which directly benefits
the consumer. The applicant was entrusted by the French
authorities in 1975 with the exclusive distribution of that                                       (2002/C 131/44)
savings book. In the contested decision, the Commission found
that the applicant benefited from an overcompensation by the
French State for the running costs of the Livret Bleu, which is
incompatible with the State aid rules of the EC Treaty.                                      (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Commission infringed
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in finding that there was aid.
The Commission applied an unreasonable global method
which is unjustified in the present case and it wrongly identified       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
funding as State resources. Furthermore, it committed manifest           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
errors of assessment by refusing to take into consideration              European Communities on 29 March 2002 by Hugh McBryan,
the costs incurred, which were properly identified, and by               residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, lawyer,
endorsing the view taken by the Commission’s consultant.                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-168/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2017 — SH v TG

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 3 April 2017 — SH v TG
   (Case C-168/17)
   (2017/C 221/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SH

      Defendant: TG

      Intervener: UF

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the following obligations to pay the costs arising under a guarantee, derived from a number of counter-guarantee agreements concluded, as part of a chain of agreements, for the purpose of issuing a bank guarantee in favour of the Libyan Housing and Infrastructure Board (‘HIB’), fall within the scope of Regulation No 204/2011 (1) or, as the case may be, Regulation No 2016/44: (2)

                           1.1.

                           where, under a counter-guarantee agreement, a bank established in the European Union has an obligation to pay the costs to a Libyan bank which is included on the prohibition list in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011;

                           1.2.

                           where, under a counter-guarantee agreement, a bank established in the European Union has an obligation to pay the costs to a Libyan bank which is not included on the prohibition list in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011 but the bank guarantee is issued in favour of HIB, which is included on that list;

                           1.3.

                           where, during the period following the amendment of Regulation No 204/2011 by Regulation No 45/2014, Regulation No 204/2011 prohibits direct or indirect payments to any Libyan entity;

                           1.4.

                           where the obligation to pay the costs arising under the guarantee derives from a counter-guarantee agreement concluded, in the context of the relationship between two banks established in the European Union, within a chain of agreements, for the purpose of issuing a bank guarantee in favour of HIB;

                           1.5.

                           where calculation of the costs arising under the guarantee takes place after expiry of the guarantee period, in legal proceedings, after the entry into force of Regulation No 2016/44?

               2.

               If the obligation referred to in points 1.1 and 1.2 above to pay the costs arising under a guarantee falls within the scope of the regulation, should the costs so arising that are paid to a Libyan bank — which was also included for a time on the prohibition list in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011 –– for the purpose of issuing a guarantee of repayment of the advance and a guarantee of proper performance in favour of HIB be considered to constitute funds used directly or indirectly for the benefit of the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex III to Regulation No 204/2011?

               3.

               Is Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 204/2011 to be interpreted, during the period following the amendment of that regulation by Regulation No 45/2014 (point 1.3), as meaning that the costs and expenses claimed by a Libyan bank and paid, under a counter-guarantee agreement, by a bank established in the European Union should be considered to constitute, directly or indirectly, claims under a guarantee?

               4.

               Must a bank established in the European Union which, under a counter-guarantee agreement concluded, within a chain of agreements, for the purpose of issuing a bank guarantee in favour of HIB, is obliged to pay the costs arising under the guarantee to a Libyan entity (point 1.4) be considered to be a person or entity within the meaning of Article 12(1)(c) of Regulation No 204/2011, as amended by Regulation No 45/2014 — that is, a person or entity acting through or on behalf of or for the benefit of one of the persons, entities or bodies referred to in point (a) or (b) of Article 12(1)? Should the costs arising under the guarantee claimed by that bank from another bank established in the European Union be considered to constitute, directly or indirectly, claims under a guarantee?

               5.

               Does the exclusion rule in Article 9 of Regulation No 204/2011 refer to any payment?

               6.

               Where calculation of the costs arising under a guarantee takes place after the entry into force of Council Regulation No 2016/44, which repealed Regulation No 204/2011 but which contains provisions that are in essence identical (point 1.5), will Regulation No 2016/44 be applicable for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties and must Article 17(1)(b) of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the costs and expenses claimed by a Libyan bank and paid, under a counter-guarantee agreement, by a bank established in the European Union, should be considered to constitute, directly or indirectly, claims under a guarantee? Must a bank established in the European Union which, under a counter-guarantee agreement concluded, within a chain of agreements, for the purpose of issuing a bank guarantee in favour of HIB, is obliged to pay the costs arising under the guarantee to a Libyan entity be considered to be a person or entity within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of that regulation — that is, a person or entity acting through or on behalf of or for the benefit of one of the persons, entities or bodies referred to in point (a) or (b) of Article 17(1)? Should the costs arising under the guarantee claimed by that bank from another bank established in the European Union be considered to constitute, directly or indirectly, claims under a guarantee?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (OJ 2016 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Prohibition for producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced — Application of that legislation by national authorities)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Prohibition for producers of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties from themselves distilling spirits from quantities of wine obtained from dual-purpose vine varieties produced in excess of the quantity normally produced - Application of that legislation by national authorities))
   (2015/C 146/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean-Marie Cahier (Montchaude, France) and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission (represented by: in Cases T-195/11 and T-458/11, initially É. Sitbon and P. Mahnič Bruni, then É. Sitbon et S. Barbagallo, in Case T-448/12, initially E. Karlsson and É. Sitbon, then E. Karlsson and A. Westerhof Löfflerová and finally E. Karlsson and S. Barbagallo and, in Case T-41/13, S. Barbagallo and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: in Case T-195/11, initially D. Bianchi, B. Schima and M. Vollkommer, then D. Bianchi and B. Schima, in Case T-458/11, B. Schima, in Case T-448/12, I. Galindo Martin and B. Schima and, in Case T-41/13, initially A. Marcoulli and B. Schima, then D. Bianchi, B. Schima and A. Marcoulli, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for damages for harm that the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of judicial actions and convictions to which they were subject in France, on the ground that they failed to conform, over the course of several wine years, with the compulsory distillation mechanism established by Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), and implemented by Commission regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-195/11, T-458/11, T-448/12 and T-41/13 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders Jean-Marie Cahier and the other applicants in Case T-195/11 to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-195/11 R;

               5.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case C-40/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n° 4, Bilbao (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2008 — Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L. v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4, Bilbao (Spain) lodged on 5 February 2008 — Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L. v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira
   (Case C-40/08)
   (2008/C 92/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 4, Bilbao
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asturcom Telecomunicaciones S.L.

      Defendant: Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira
   Question referred
   May the protection of consumers under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts require the court hearing an action for enforcement of a final arbitration award, made in the absence of the consumer, to determine of its own motion whether the arbitration agreement is void and accordingly to annul the award if it finds that that arbitration agreement contains an unfair term to the detriment of the consumer?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-296/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez
   (Case C-296/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/48
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Purrucker

      Defendant: Guillermo Vallés Pérez

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (‘Brussels IIA’) (1) applicable if the court of a Member State first seised by one party to resolve matters of parental responsibility is called upon to grant only provisional measures and the court of another Member State subsequently seised by the other party in the same cause of action is called upon to rule on the substance of the matter?

               2.

               Is that provision also applicable if a ruling in the isolated proceedings for provisional measures in one Member State is not capable of recognition in another Member State within the meaning of Article 21 of Regulation No 2201/2003?

               3.

               Is the seising of a court in a Member State for isolated provisional measures to be equated to seising as to the substance of the matter within the meaning of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 2201/2003 if under the national rules of procedure of that State a subsequent action to resolve the issue as to the substance of the matter must be brought in that court within a specified period in order to avoid procedural disadvantages?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000; OJ 2003 L388, p. 1.


title: Case C-567/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Adrian Barliba against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-312/12: Barliba v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/53

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Adrian Barliba against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-312/12: Barliba v Commission
   (Case C-567/12 P)
   2013/C 225/95
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Adrian Barliba (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-126/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Lyon): Ministre de l'économie, des finances et de l'industrie v GEMO SA (State aid — System of financing a public carcass disposal service by a meat purchase tax — Interpretation of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))

text:
C 7/4                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.1.2004
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing                       implementing the provisions of Directive 95/46 to areas not
of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ                           included in the scope thereof provided that no other provision of
1995 L 281, p. 31), the Court, composed of: P. Jann,                                 Community law precludes it.
President of the First Chamber, acting for the President,
C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-                     (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
teur), J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and S. von Bahr, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 2003, in
which it has ruled:
1.    The act of referring, on an internet page, to various persons and                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      identifying them by name or by other means, for instance by
      giving their telephone number or information regarding their
      working conditions and hobbies, constitutes ‘the processing of                                     (Sixth Chamber)
      personal data wholly or partly by automatic means’ within the
      meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European                                   of 20 November 2003
      Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the
      protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      personal data and on the free movement of such data.                    in Case C-126/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon): Ministre de
                                                                                l’économie, des finances et de l’industrie v GEMO SA (1)
2.    Such processing of personal data is not covered by any of the
      exceptions in Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46.                          (State aid — System of financing a public carcass disposal
                                                                              service by a meat purchase tax — Interpretation of Article 92
                                                                                of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))
3.    Reference to the fact that an individual has injured her foot and
      is on half-time on medical grounds constitutes personal data
                                                                                (2004/C 7/05)
      concerning health within the meaning of Article 8(1) of
      Directive 95/46.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
4.    There is no ‘transfer [of data] to a third country’ within the          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46 where an individual                                 in the European Court Reports)
      in a Member State loads personal data onto an internet page
      which is stored on an internet site on which the page can be
      consulted and which is hosted by a natural or legal person who
      is established in that State or in another Member State, thereby
      making those data accessible to anyone who connects to the              In Case C-126/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      internet, including people in a third country.                          by the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) for a
                                                                              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                              court between Ministre de l’économie, des finances et de
                                                                              l’industrie and GEMO SA, on the interpretation of Article 92
5.    The provisions of Directive 95/46 do not, in themselves, bring          of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC), the
      about a restriction which conflicts with the general principles of      Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting
      freedom of expression or other freedoms and rights, which are           as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
      applicable within the European Union and are enshrined inter            (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
      alia in Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection        F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
      of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November
      on 4 November 1950. It is for the national authorities                  2003, in which it has ruled:
      and courts responsible for applying the national legislation
      implementing Directive 95/46 to ensure a fair balance between
      the rights and interests in question, including the fundamental         Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1)
      rights protected by the Community legal order.                          EC), must be interpreted as meaning that a system such as that
                                                                              at issue in the main proceedings, which provides farmers and
                                                                              slaughterhouses with the free collection and disposal of animal
                                                                              carcasses and slaughterhouse waste, must be classified as State aid.
6.    Measures taken by the Member States to ensure the protection
      of personal data must be consistent both with the provisions of
      Directive 95/46 and with its objective of maintaining a balance
                                                                              (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
      between freedom of movement of personal data and the
      protection of private life. However, nothing prevents a Member
      State from extending the scope of the national legislation


title: Case C-489/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 4 November 2014 — A v B

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 4 November 2014 — A v B
   (Case C-489/14)
   (2015/C 026/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: B

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 19(1) and (3) (1), what does ‘established’ mean, in circumstances where:-

                           a)

                           the applicant, in the proceedings in the court first seised (‘the first proceedings’), takes virtually no steps in the first proceedings beyond the first court appointment, and in particular does not issue a Petition (Assignation) within the time limit for the expiry of the Request (Requête), with the result that the first proceedings expire undetermined by effluxion of time and in accordance with the local (French) law of the first proceedings, namely 30 months after the first directions appointment;

                           b)

                           the first proceedings expire as above very shortly (3 days) after the proceedings in the court second seised (‘the second proceedings’) are issued in England, with the result that there is no judgment in France nor any danger of irreconcilable judgments between the first proceedings and the second proceedings; and

                           c)

                           by virtue of the United Kingdom's time zone the applicant in the first proceedings would, following the lapse of the first proceedings, always be able to issue divorce proceedings in France before the applicant could issue divorce proceedings in England?

               2.

               In particular, does ‘established’ import that the applicant in the first proceedings must take steps to progress the first proceedings with due diligence and expedition to a resolution of the dispute (whether by the Court or by agreement), or is the applicant in the first proceedings, having once secured jurisdiction under Articles 3 and 19(1), free to take no substantive steps at all towards resolution of the first proceedings as above and free thereby simply to secure a stop of the second proceedings and a stalemate in the dispute as a whole?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 OJ L 338, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 October 2015 in Case E-10/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/126/EC on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations)

text:
               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 467/23

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 27 October 2015
   in Case E-10/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/126/EC on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations)
   (2016/C 467/10)
   In Case E-10/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-118/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Eon Asset Management OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Eon Asset Management OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’
   (Case C-118/11)
   2011/C 145/21
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eon Asset Management OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’

      Questions referred

               1.

               How must the requirement ‘are used’ established in Article 168 of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted and, in the framework of assessing the initial establishment of the right of deduction, when must that requirement be satisfied: in the tax period itself in which the goods were purchased or the services received or does it suffice that the requirement is satisfied in a subsequent tax period?

               2.

               In the light of Articles 168 and 176 of Directive 2006/112, is a legal rule permissible, such as that established in the domestic provision of Article 70(1)(2) of the Law on VAT, which allows goods and services ‘intended for gratuitous transactions or for activities other than the economic activity of the taxable person’ to be excluded from the outset from the system of input tax deduction?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 176 of Directive 2006/112 be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which sought to take advantage of the option to exclude certain goods and services from the right of deduction and which defined the category of expenditure as follows: the goods and services intended for gratuitous transactions or for activities other than the economic activity of the taxable person except in the cases mentioned in Article 70(3) of the Law on VAT, satisfied the requirement to adequately define the category of goods and services, that is, to define these by reference to their nature?

               4.

               Depending on the answer given to Question 3: In the light of Articles 168 and 173 of Directive 2006/112, how must the purpose (the use or future use) of the goods or services acquired by the taxable person be assessed: as a prerequisite for the initial establishment of the right of deduction or as grounds for the adjustment of the amount of input tax deducted?

               5.

               If the purpose (use) must be assessed as grounds for an adjustment to the amount of input tax deducted, how must Article 173 of Directive 2006/112 be interpreted: does it provide for adjustments to be made also in cases in which goods and services are used initially for an activity which is not taxed or following their acquisition not used at all but are at the disposal of the undertaking and in a (tax) period following their acquisition are included in the taxable activity of the taxable person?

               6.

               If Article 173 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment envisaged also applies to cases in which, following their acquisition, goods and services are used initially for an activity which is not taxed or not used at all but subsequently are included in the taxable activity of the taxable person, in the light of the restriction established by Article 70(1)(2) of the Law on VAT and the fact that, pursuant to Article 79(1) and (2) of the Law on VAT, adjustments may be made only in cases in which goods whose initial use satisfies the requirement for deduction of input tax are subsequently included in a use which does not satisfy those requirements, must it be presumed that the Member State has satisfied its obligation, in relation to all taxable persons, to structure the right of deduction as soundly and fairly as possible?

               7.

               Depending on the answers given to the previous questions: Must it be presumed, having regard to the rules established in the Bulgarian Law on VAT governing restrictions on the right of deduction and adjustments to the amount of input tax deducted, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, and in the light of Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, that, in relation to goods supplied and services carried out by another taxable person, a taxable person registered pursuant to the Bulgarian Law on VAT may deduct the input tax in the (tax) period in which these were supplied to him or carried out on his behalf and in which the VAT became chargeable?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-84/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/18

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-84/05)
   (2005/C 93/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis and A. Aresu, members of its legal service, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing, hitherto, to adopt the legislation necessary to apply Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, to new installations, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) thereof;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive expired on 30 October 1999.

      (1)  OJ L 257 of 10. 10. 1996, p. 26.


title: Case T-274/07: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products v Council (Dumping — Imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine — Market economy treatment — Rights of the defence — Offer of price undertakings — Confidential treatment of the complainants’ identity)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products v Council
   (Case T-274/07) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine - Market economy treatment - Rights of the defence - Offer of price undertakings - Confidential treatment of the complainants’ identity)
   2011/C 370/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd (Quzhou, Zhejiang, China) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and Y. Melin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents); Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd (Rochdale, United Kingdom), Pirola SpA (Mapello, Italy) and Colombo New Scal SpA (Rovagnate, Italy) (represented by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine, in so far as they impose a definitive anti-dumping duty and collect definitively the provisional duty on ironing boards manufactured by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA and Colombo New Scale SpA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case C-455/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2012 — Karin Oertel v Finanzamt Würzburg mit Außenstelle Ochsenfurt

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2012 — Karin Oertel v Finanzamt Würzburg mit Außenstelle Ochsenfurt
   (Case C-455/12)
   2012/C 399/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karin Oertel

      Defendant: Finanzamt Würzburg mit Außenstelle Ochsenfurt

      Question referred

   Having regard to the principle of neutrality, does the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) in conjunction with Annex H, Category 5, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude national rules which provide for a reduced rate of turnover tax for local passenger transport by taxi, whereas local passenger transport by minicab is subject to the standard rate of tax?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T -157/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM-PCS Systemtechnik (T-PCS)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM-PCS Systemtechnik (T-PCS)
   (Case T -157/05) (1)

   (2006/C 190/57)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Case F-61/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Proia v Commission (Civil Service — Member of contract staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Usual residence prior to the entry into service — Period of study followed by a traineeship and successive employment contracts in the State of employment — Presumed intention of the member of staff concerned to move the permanent centre of his interests from the start of his studies in the State of employment — Absence)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Proia v Commission
   (Case F-61/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Member of contract staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Usual residence prior to the entry into service - Period of study followed by a traineeship and successive employment contracts in the State of employment - Presumed intention of the member of staff concerned to move the permanent centre of his interests from the start of his studies in the State of employment - Absence))
   (2016/C 078/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Proia (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the Commission of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant Mr Proia the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Proia.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015, p. 27.


title: Case F-69/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Illegality — Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in that case — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-69/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Illegality - Letter concerning the costs of a case sent to the lawyer who represented the applicant in that case - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
   2012/C 138/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that the defendant had sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer who did not yet represent him in that case.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 75.


title: Case T-316/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescazzurra v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/34

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescazzurra v Commission
   (Case T-316/08)
   (2008/C 272/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Pescazzurra Srl (Messina, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/12

         Removal from the register of Case C-485/04 (1)

   (2005/C 330/29)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 12 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-485/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-209/99: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Action for damages — Admissibility)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/21
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 5 December 2002                                                           of 5 December 2002
in Case T-119/99: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the                       in Case T-209/99: Paul Edwin Hoyer v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                    European Communities ( 1)
(Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court                     (Temporary agents — Execution of a judgment of the Court
of First Instance — Recommencement of internal competition                     of First Instance — Action for damages — Admissibility)
COM/LA/2/89 — Omission from the list of suitable candi-
                                dates)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/37)
                          (2003/C 44/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             In Case T-209/99: Paul Edwin Hoyer, formerly a temporary
In Case T-119/99: Paul Edwin Hoyer, formerly a temporary                     agent of the Commission of the European Communities,
agent of the Commission of the European Communities,                         residing in Hoeilaart, Belgium, represented by G. van der Wal,
residing in Hoeilaart, Belgium, represented by G. van der Wal,               Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                    G. Valsesia and C. Van der Hauwaert, subsequently F. Clotuche-
G. Valsesia and C. Van der Hauwaert, subsequently F. Clotuche-               Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart) — application for compen-
Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart) — application for annulment                   sation of material and psychological damage suffered as a
of the Commission’s competition COM/LA/2/89 or at least                      result of the judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance
annulment of the jury’s decision to omit the applicant from                  on 17 March 1994 in Case T-43/91 Hoyer v Commission
the list of suitable candidates in the competition, notified to              ECR-SC I-A-91 and II-297 and Case T-51/91 Hoyer v Com-
the applicant by letter of the Commission of 15 February 1999                mission ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-341 — the Court of First
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of                  Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                 and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
gave a judgment on 5 December 2002, in which it:                             5 December 2002, in which it:
1.     Dismissed the application;                                            1.     Dismissed the application as inadmissible;
2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.                    2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                   (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: Case C-435/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 18 July 2017 — Argo Kalda Mardi talu v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 18 July 2017 — Argo Kalda Mardi talu v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)
   (Case C-435/17)
   (2017/C 338/09)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Halduskohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Argo Kalda Mardi talu

      Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a requirement to preserve cairns, established by a Member State for an applicant for a single area payment and a payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, for the breach of which a reduction of the payment by 3 % is imposed as an administrative penalty laid down by Article 39 of Commission Delegated Regulation No 640/2014, (1) compatible with Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council and the minimum standards laid down in Annex II to that regulation?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is No, must, in accordance with Article 72(1)(a), Article 91(1) and (2), Article 93(1) and Article 94 of Regulation No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 4(1)(b), (c) and (e) of Regulation No 1307/2013 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, an applicant for a single area payment and a payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment comply with the requirements of good agricultural and environmental condition on the whole of his holding or solely on the agricultural area in respect of which the payment is specifically applied for, in order to exclude the imposition of an administrative penalty?

      (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch, by order of that court of 30 December 1994 in the case of F. C. Terhoeve v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland (Case C-18/95)

text:
No C 74/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25 . 3 . 95
who requests tax exemption for transactions within the                       ( b ) If question (a ) is answered in the affirmative, is that
meaning of the provision performs those transactions on                             presumption rebuttable or irrebuttable ?
behalf of the financial institution in whose name the service
is performed ?                                                               (c ) If the presumption in question is rebuttable, is its
                                                                                possible rebuttal governed solely by national
Question 6                                                                          procedural law, in particular the rules of evidence
                                                                                of the     Member      State  concerned,    or    does
After the plaintiff's reorganization, is it significant as far as                   Community law also lay down requirements in that
application of Article 13 B (d ) Nos 3 to 5 is concerned that                       regard ?
the services in question are now provided by a company
which supplies the services to the associated financial                     ( d) If Community law makes the rebuttal of such a
institutions ?                                                                      presumption subject to certain requirements, what
                                                                                significance attaches in the present case to the
It will be noted that the said services are invoiced by the                         following circumstances:
company to the plaintiff which in turn invoices its financial
institution members .                                                               — the respondent authority has stated that, of the
                                                                                very much broader category of taxpayers
                                                                                residing abroad, almost one half are its own
(*) Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                nationals, without adducing any evidence in
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                         support of that assertion,
     basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , p. 1 ).
(2 ) Essentially electronic data-handling for SDC's members and                     — the      appellant,      who     pleads    indirect
     other financial institutions .                                                     discrimination based on nationality, has not
                                                                                contested the correctness of that assertion by
                                                                                the authority,
                                                                                — the respondent authority is in an appreciably
                                                                                better position than the appellant to collect
                                                                                information which may possibly rebut the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,                                aforementioned presumption ?
's-Hertogenbosch, by order of that court of 30 December
1994 in the case of F. C. Terhoeve v. Inspecteur der
  Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland                3 . Is there any rule of Community law precluding a
                                                                            Member State, regardless of any question of ( indirect)
                            Case C-18/95 )                                  discrimination based on nationality, from imposing, in a
                             ( 95/C 74/06 )                                 given year, a heavier social security contributions
                                                                            burden on an employee who moves his residence during
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      that year from that Member State to another Member
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof                            State, or' vice versa, than on an employee who, in
                                                                            otherwise similar circumstances, maintains his residence
( Regional Court of Appeal), 's-Hertogenbosch of
30 December 1994, which was received at the Court                           throughout the whole year in a single Member State ?
Registry on 23 January 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of F. C. Terhoeve v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst               4 . If the imposition of a heavier contributions burden, as
Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland on the following                     referred to in the previous question, is in principle
questions:                                                                  incompatible with Article 7 or Article 48 (2 ) of the EEC
                                                                            Treaty, or with any other rule of Community law, can it
1 . Are the provisions of Community law on freedom of                       be justified by one or more of the following
      movement for workers applicable to a national of a                    circumstances, albeit that they are not regarded as
      Member State who moves his residence in the course of a               connected with each other :
      year from another Member State to the Member State of
     which he is a national and who is successively employed                — the measure results from legislation whereby the
      in that year in each of those Member States, and who                        levying of income tax and social security
      undeniably earned most of his income during that year                       contributions is intended, for the sake of
      in one of the two Member States ?                                           simplification, to coincide to a very great extent, if
                                                                                not entirely,
2. (a) Does it follow from Community law, in particular
           Articles 7 and 48 (2 ) of the EEC Treaty and                     — solutions which, whilst maintaining that coherence,
           Article 7 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 , that                 seek to avoid the imposition of the heavier
           in the application of legislation operating to the                     contributions referred to above, result in technical
           disadvantage of emigrants and immigrants as                            problems of implementation or in possible
           regards liability to make social security                              over-compensation,
           contributions there is a presumption that such
           disadvantage mainly affects nationals of other                   — in certain cases, albeit not in the present case, joint
           States ?                                                               liability to income tax and social security
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/5
          contributions is lower for immigrants and emigrants          Reconsider the claim of the Appellant and:
          in the year in which they move than for persons who,
          in otherwise similar circumstances, retain the same          1 . order the Commission to pay to the Appellant a total
          residence throughout the whole year ?                             amount of ECU 4 389 498,40,
5 . (a ) If a heavier contributions burden, as referred to in               interest at the rate of 8 % as of 6 July 1992,
           question 3 , is incompatible with Article 7 or
           Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EEC Treaty, or with any other            legal costs and expenses including legal fees,
           rule of Community law, should there be taken into
           account, in determining whether in any specific case        2 . SUBSIDIARILY,
           a heavier burden is actually involved, only income
           from employment or, in addition, other income                    order the Commission to pay to the Appellant the
           received by the person concerned, such as profits                amount of ECU 2 504 280,07 representing:
           from real property ?
                                                                             (a ) the balance of ECU 148 192,09 for incorrect
     ( b ) If other income apart from earnings from                                processing of invoices;
           employment is to be left out of consideration, how
            is it to be determined whether, and to what extent,              ( b ) the undisputed balance of ECU 483 830,65 for
           the levying of contributions on income from                             pending invoices;
           employment places the migrant worker concerned
            at a disadvantage ?                                              (c) the compensatory costs arising out of cancellation
                                                                                of the Contract i.e. ECU 1 922 258 ;
6 . ( a ) If in the present case there was an infringement of
            any rule of Community law, is the national court                 interests at the rate of 8 % as of 6 July 1992;
            obliged to nullify that infringement even if to do so
            would require a choice between different                         legal costs and expenses including legal fees.
            alternatives each of which entails advantages and
            disadvantages ?                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     ( b) If the national court in this case does nullify an
            infringement of EC law, does Community law                 First bead of claim — non-payment of certain invoices
            provide any directions as to the choice which the
            national court should make between different               In finding that the Commission delegate was entitled to
            conceivable solutions ?                                    refuse to endorse certain invoices relating to price increases
                                                                       for materials and to the increased unit-price of the sub-base
                                                                       for the access roads to the bridges whose construction was
                                                                       the subject of the contract, the Court of First Instance
                                                                       incorrectly interpreted the facts at its disposal and this led to
                                                                       an improper application of the law.
Appeal brought on 26 January 1995 by San Marco Impex
Italians SRL against the judgment delivered on                         The Court of First Instance misapplied the rules governing
16 November 1994 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of                  the contract for the Juba and Shebelli bridges when it held
First Instance of the European Communities in case                     that the Appellant was not contractually obliged to comply
T-451/93 between San Marco Impex Italiana SRL and the                  with and adhere strictly to the instructions given by
           Commission of the European Communities                      Consulint, the consulting engineers hired by the Somali
                           Case C- 19/95 P)                            government to supervise the works .
                             ( 95/C 74/07)
                                                                       The Commission misapplied the rules governing the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 November                contract in its processing of the invoices and should have
1994 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of            been held liable by the Court of First Instance for this
the European Communities in case T-451/93 between San                  obviously wrongful act.
Marco Impex Italiana SRL and the Commission of the
European Communities, was brought before the Court of                  The Appellant's legitimate expectations were breached:
Justice of the European Communities on 26 January 1995
by San Marco Impex Italiana SRL, represented by Lucette                ( a) by the delegate in refusing to endorse the invoices and
Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  by the Commission and its delegate in refusing payment
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue                          of endorsed invoices;
Guillaume .
                                                                       ( b ) by the Commission in refusing to sign Addendum No 1 ,
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                    which it had prepared after having announced the grant
                                                                               of the funds;
Review the Decision of 16 November 1994 of the Court of
First Instance in Case T-451/93 ;                                              and


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 April 2004 in Case C-156/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Les Laboratoires Servier SA (Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC — Medicinal products for human use — Dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation — Competence of the Commission — Conditions for withdrawal — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/29

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-156/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Les Laboratoires Servier SA (1)

   (Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC - Medicinal products for human use - Dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine - Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation - Competence of the Commission - Conditions for withdrawal - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   (2004/C 118/53)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-156/03 P: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk), appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 January 2003 in Case T-147/00 Laboratoires Servier v Commission [2003] ECR II-85, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Les Laboratoires Servier SA, established in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France) (Lawyers: I. S. Forrester QC and J. Killick, barrister) - the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the costs of these proceedings and of those relating to the application for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case C-230/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH
   (Case C-230/16)
   (2016/C 260/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

      Defendant: Parfümerie Akzente GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do selective distribution systems that have as their aim the distribution of luxury goods and primarily serve to ensure a ‘luxury image’ for the goods constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Does it constitute an aspect of competition that is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU if the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade are prohibited generally from engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales, irrespective of whether the manufacturer’s legitimate quality standards are contravened in the specific case?

               3.

               Is Article 4(b) of Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition of engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales that is imposed on the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade constitutes a restriction of the retailer’s customer group ‘by object’?

               4.

               Is Article 4(c) of Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 to be interpreted as meaning that a prohibition of engaging third-party undertakings discernible to the public to handle internet sales that is imposed on the members of a selective distribution system operating at the retail level of trade constitutes a restriction of passive sales to end users ‘by object’?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 2010 L 102, p. 1.


title: Case C-83/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 February 2016 — Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 February 2016 — Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-83/16)
   (2016/C 136/25)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 161(5) and Article 210(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that an exporter of goods from the customs territory of the Community is the person established in that territory who is a party to the contract for the sale of the goods to a person established in a third country, where that contract is the basis for placing the goods under the customs export procedure, according to that regulation?

               2.

               Must Article 161(1) and Article 210(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that export takes place and an export customs debt is incurred in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to a vessel (yacht) flying the flag of a Member State, only on the basis of a contract of sale to a person established in a third country and removal of that vessel from the shipping register of that Member State?

               3.

               Must subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, when exporting a vessel (yacht) flying the flag of a Member State, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a contract for the sale of the vessel to a person established in a third country and removal of that vessel from the shipping register of that Member State constitute sufficient evidence within the meaning of that provision?

               4.

               Does it follow from subparagraph 3(b) and subparagraph 4 of Article 795(1) and subparagraph 4 of Article 795(1) in conjunction with Article 796e(1)(b) of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code that the assessment [regarding the existence] of sufficient evidence under Article 796da(4) of that regulation by the relevant competent customs authority, in the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings, is binding and not subject to review by the customs authority competent to issue a retrospective customs declaration within the meaning of the first provision?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


title: Case C-599/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — TofuTown.com GmbH; other parties to the proceedings: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the word sign ‘TOFUKING’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark Curry King — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Degree of similarity)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/6

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — TofuTown.com GmbH; other parties to the proceedings: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-599/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word sign ‘TOFUKING’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark Curry King - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Degree of similarity)
   2012/C 303/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Russlies, Rechtsanwalt), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica v OHIM — TofuTown.com (TOFUKING), in which the General Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2010 (Case R 63/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH — Likelihood of confusion

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders TofuTown.com GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case C-193/05: Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/10

         Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-193/05)
   (2005/C 155/19)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               (1)

               declare that, by maintaining, for the purpose of establishing oneself under the home-country professional title, language knowledge requirements, a prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service and the obligation to reproduce each year the certificate from the home Member State, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, (1) in particular Articles 2, 3 and 5 thereof;

               (2)

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The introduction of language testing as a prerequisite for a European lawyer to be entered in the register of the Ordre des avocats is contrary to the general objective of the Directive, which is to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer in a Member State other than that in which the professional qualification was obtained and infringes inter alia Article 3(2) of that directive, under which the host Member State is to the register the lawyer ‘upon presentation of a certificate attesting to his registration with the competent authority in the home Member State’.
   The prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service is contrary to Article 5(1), under which a European lawyer ‘carries on the same professional activities as a lawyer practising under the relevant professional title used in the host Member State’.
   In its response to the reasoned opinion, the Luxembourg Government states that it has taken due note of the Commission's argument that the requirement to reproduce each year the certificate from the home Member State constitutes an unjustified administrative burden having regard to the provisions of the Directive.
   The Commission has found, however, that, contrary to the terms of the Directive, for the reasons stated in the reasoned opinion, at the present time that requirement remains in the text of the Law of 13 November 2002, which implements Directive 98/5 in Luxembourg law.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 77, of 14.03.1998, p. 36.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police, Belley, by judgment of that court of 24 November 1998 in the case of Ministère Public v Jean-Pierre Guimont (Case C-448/98)

text:
C 33/6                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.2.1999
(g) Since neither of the parties to the main proceedings             geographical area under para. 5(c) of such notification the
      has raised any question of interpretation or                   Landkreise (rural districts) of Gera, Zeitz, Geithain,
      application of the Sixth VAT Directive, may the                Grimma, Wurzen, Borna and the City of Gera (or, to use
      national court, of its own motion, interpret and apply         the nomenclature arising from the redrawing of
      the provisions of that directive when giving its final         boundaries and renaming of districts pursuant to
      decision?                                                      administrative reforms in the relevant Bundesländer of
                                                                     Thüringen, Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt, in so far as it
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the         included the Landkreise Greiz and Muldentalkreis, parts
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to       of the Kreise Leipziger Land and Burgenlandkreis and the
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:               City of Gera).
    uniform basis of assessment Ð OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The appellants plead infringement of the fourth paragraph
                                                                     of Article 173 of the EC Treaty. In their submission, the
                                                                     contested order wrongly denied that they were
Appeal brought on 7 December 1998 by Molkerei                        individually concerned by the regulation. It ignored the
Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH                     fact that, in the particular circumstances, the contested
against the order delivered on 15 September 1998 by                  regulation had the effect of a decision; that the plaintiffs'
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance                    position was not improved but worsened thereby; that
of the European Communities in Case T-109/97                         erroneous choice of the simplified registration procedure
between Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene                        caused guaranteed hearing rights to be truncated, which
Nahrungsmittel GmbH, supported by Freistaat Thüringen,               would otherwise have conferred standing to bring an
and the Commission of the European Communities,                      action; that the plaintiffs do not have appropriate
supported by Molkerei und Weichkäserei K.-H.                         protection by bringing national legal proceedings; and that
                      Zimmermann GmbH                                in any event no determination could be made as to the
                       (Case C-447/98 P)                             admissibility of the claim without any consideration of its
                         (1999/C 33/09)                              merits.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 378, 5.12.1998, p. 17.
An appeal against the order issued on 15 September 1998
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-109/97 (1)
between Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene
Nahrungsmittel GmbH, supported by Freistaat Thüringen,
and the Commission of the European Communities,                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
supported by Molkerei und Weichkäserei K.-H.                         Police, Belley, by judgment of that court of 24 November
Zimmermann GmbH, was brought before the Court of                     1998 in the case of MinisteÁre Public v Jean-Pierre
Justice of the European Communities on 7 December                                               Guimont
1998 by Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene                                              (Case C-448/98)
Nahrungsmittel        GmbH,      represented     by    Michael
Loschelder and Thilo Klingbeil, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne,                                     (1999/C 33/10)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
The appellants claim that the Court should:                          Police (Local Criminal Court), Belley, France, of
                                                                     24 November 1998, which was received at the Court
set aside the order of the Court of First Instance and allow         Registry on 9 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the appellants' original claim for the annulment of                  the case of MinisteÁre Public v Jean-Pierre Guimont on the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/97 of 23 January                   following question:
1997 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical                  On a proper construction of Articles 3(a) and 30 et seq. of
indications and designations of origin under the procedure           the Treaty establishing the European Community, as
laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92               amended, must the French rules enacted by Decree
in so far as, in respect of the product Altenburger                 No 88-1206 of 30 December 1988, which prohibit the
Ziegenkäse (PDO)' referred to in Part A of the Annex to              manufacture and marketing in France of a cheese without
the regulation, the notification by the Federal Republic of          rind under the designation Emmental', be regarded as
Germany of 26 January 1994, as supplemented on                       constituting a quantitative restriction or a measure having
7 August 1996, included in the designation of the relevant           equivalent effect on intra-Community trade?