title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 March 2000 in Case C-329/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Sezgin Ergat v Stadt Ulm (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of workers — First paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Member of a Turkish worker's family — Extension of residence permit — Definition of legal residence — Application for extension of a temporary residence permit lodged after its expiry)

text:
C 149/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            27.5.2000
Philippe II — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 8 October 1996 in Joined Cases
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
T-24/93 to T-26/93 and T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge
Transports and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1201,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the                                  of 16 March 2000
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Lyal, assisted by J. Flynn), Grimaldi, established            in Case C-329/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Palermo, Italy, and Cobelfret, established in Antwerp,                from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Sezgin Ergat v Stadt
represented by M. Clough, Solicitor, with an address for service                                          Ulm (1)
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue,
interveners at first instance, Deutsche Afrika-Linien GmbH &
Co., established in Hamburg, Germany, Nedlloyd Lijnen BV,                (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of
established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, applicants at first               workers — First paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80
instance — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O.                of the Association Council — Member of a Turkish worker’s
Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho             family — Extension of residence permit — Definition of
de Almeida, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges;                   legal residence — Application for extension of a temporary
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                residence permit lodged after its expiry)
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March
2000, in which it:                                                                                (2000/C 149/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    8 October 1996 in Joined Cases T-24/93 to T-26/93 and
    T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v
    Commission to the extent that it upheld the fines imposed on         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    Compagnie Maritime Belge Transport SA, Compagnie Maritime                                 in the European Court Reports)
    Belge SA and Dafra-Lines A/S;
                                                                         In Case C-329/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesverwaltungs-
                                                                         gericht, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
2. Annuls Articles 6 and 7 of Commission Decision 93/82/EEC              pending before that court between Sezgin Ergat and Stadt Ulm
    of 23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to             — on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 7 of
    Articles 85 (IV/32.448 and IV/32.450: Cewal, Cowac and               Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
    Ukwal) and 86 (IV/32.448 and IV/32.450: Cewal) of the EEC            1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the
    Treaty as regards Compagnie Maritime Belge Transport SA,             Association Council established by the Association Agreement
    Compagnie Maritime Belge SA and Dafra-Lines A/S;                     between the European Economic Community and Turkey
                                                                         — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
                                                                         (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting as
                                                                         President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,
3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                                Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 2000, in which
                                                                         it has ruled:
4. Orders Compagnie Maritime Belge Transport SA, Compagnie
                                                                         A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter a Member State for
    Maritime Belge SA and Dafra-Lines A/S to bear their own
                                                                         the purpose of re-uniting the family of a Turkish worker belonging to
    costs, and to pay three quarters of those of the Commission of
                                                                         the legal labour force of that State, has been legally resident there for
    the European Communities and all those of Grimaldi and
                                                                         more than five years and has been in legal employment of various
    Cobelfret.
                                                                         kinds, with interruptions, does not lose the benefit of the rights
                                                                         conferred on him by the second indent of the first paragraph of Article
                                                                         7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development
                                                                         of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by
                                                                         the Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey, and, in
                                                                         particular, the right to extend his residence permit in the host Member
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                State, where his residence permit had expired before the date on which
                                                                         he lodged an application to extend it which was refused by the
                                                                         competent national authorities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


title: Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel

text:
21.4.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/13
4.   If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is                  Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
     Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under                     requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
     Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive                     workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
     when an existing body has the task of providing compen-                  Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and
     sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
     relevant authority of the Member State that does not               —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     those respects, and:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     a)     that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
            the relevant authority of the Member State to
            provide compensation to victims which is directly           The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
            enforceable by the relevant authority and does not          by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
            give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to     to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
            claim against that body, but the victim may apply to        point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
            the Court for an order that the authority should            subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
            enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to      point 2.8.
            do so; and
                                                                        The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
     b)     that body carries out that obligation by accepting
                                                                        has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
            and paying claims from victims in accordance with
                                                                        89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
            that agreement; and
                                                                        law.
     c)     the Member State considered in good faith that the
            provision of that agreement gave at least as good
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
            protection to victims as the requirements of the            (2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
            Second Motor Insurance Directive?
5.   If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
     and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
     comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
     Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
     matter of Community law if it is established that such
     damage was caused?                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
                                                                                appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                                (Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/21)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
                                                                        the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
                          (Case C-65/01)                                Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                         (2001/C 118/20)                                in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
                                                                        questions:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February             1.    Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                                the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
                                                                              and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
                                                                              Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
     Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989                     labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
     concerning the minimum safety and health requirements                    foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     for the use of work equipment by workers at work                         human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     (second individual Directive within the meaning of                       ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian                  offence when marketing foodstuffs:
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.4.2001
      (a)  to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,         Pleas in law and main arguments
           in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
           inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
           tain health, or to create the impression of any such          The Commission takes the view that the Grand Duchy of
           effect;                                                       Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures to
                                                                         implement the provisions set out in its application and that
                                                                         the existing provisions relied on do not constitute full and
      (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                         correct transposition.
           doctors or medical experts’ reports;
      (c)  to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 2.
           tations of organs of the human body, pictures
           of members of the health-care professions or of
           sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
           to health-care activities?
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
      preclude a national provision which, on the marketing of
      foodstuffs, permits health-related information such as
      that described in Question 1 to be affixed thereto
      only after prior authorisation by the competent federal
      minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is that the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Central
      health-related information be consistent with protecting           Administrativo, 2a Secção by judgment of that court of
      the consumer from being misled?                                    19 December 2000 in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                           Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública
                                                                                (Case C-77/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/23)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Central
                           Luxembourg                                    Administrativo, 2a Secção (Second Chamber of the Central
                                                                         Administrative Court) of 19 December 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
                          (Case C-75/01)                                 preliminary ruling in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                         Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública on the
                         (2001/C 118/22)                                 following questions:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Question 1
ties on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright and J. Adda,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Does the granting of annually repaid loans by a holding
                                                                         company to its partners constitute ‘economic activity’, within
                                                                         the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), where
The applicant claims that the Court should                               that company’s principle activity is to manage those partners
                                                                         and, to a certain extent, also guarantee the loans contracted by
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force all the measures      them?
      necessary to implement fully and correctly Articles 1,
      4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b)
      and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c), and 23(2) in
                                                                         Question 2
      conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI, of Council
      Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
      of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the           Likewise: the performance of operations, in the context of a
      Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                 consortium as in the present case, by a company which is both
      obligations under that directive and the third paragraph           a member and the administrator of the consortium, particularly
      of Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and                               where they exceed its share as stipulated in the contract, in
                                                                         return for payment in consideration of its value by the other
—     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              members of the consortium?


title: Case C-126/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België -Belgium) — Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV v Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh and Firma De Vos NV; Belgische Staat v Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV; and Louis De Vos v Belgische Staat (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duty — Entry in the accounts of the amount of duty — Entry in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium — Act of recording equivalent to entry in the accounts — Delivery of a copy of the record equivalent to communication of the amount of duty legally owed)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België -Belgium) — Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV v Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh and Firma De Vos NV; Belgische Staat v Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV; and Louis De Vos v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-126/08) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duty - Entry in the accounts of the amount of duty - Entry in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium - Act of recording equivalent to entry in the accounts - Delivery of a copy of the record equivalent to communication of the amount of duty legally owed)
   2009/C 220/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV, Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos

      Respondents: Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co. BVBA, liquidator of Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh, Firma De Vos NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 217(1) and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (version in force in 1992) (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Whether or not the amount of the duty owed must be entered in the accounts before being communicated to the person liable for payment — ‘[Entry] in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 217 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that Member States can provide that the entry in the accounts of the amount of duty resulting from a customs debt may be effected by the entry of that amount on a record which is drawn up by the competent customs authorities and establishes an infringement of the applicable customs legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.


title: Case C-416/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro — Portugal) — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, E.M., SA, in liquidation, Município de Portimão, Emarp — Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão, EM, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23 — Article 1(1)(b) — Article 2(1)(d) — Transfer of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Scope — Concepts of ‘employees’ and ‘transfer of a business’)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro — Portugal) — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, E.M., SA, in liquidation, Município de Portimão, Emarp — Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão, EM, SA
   (Case C-416/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23 - Article 1(1)(b) - Article 2(1)(d) - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Scope - Concepts of ‘employees’ and ‘transfer of a business’))
   (2017/C 300/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo

      Defendants: Portimão Urbis, E.M., SA, in liquidation, Município de Portimão, Emarp — Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão, EM, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted to the effect that, where a municipal undertaking, whose sole shareholder is a municipality, is wound up by a decision of the municipality’s executive body and its activities are transferred in part to the municipality to be carried on directly by it and in part to another municipal undertaking re-formed for that purpose, whose sole shareholder is also that same municipality, that situation falls within the scope of the directive, provided that the identity of the undertaking in question is preserved after the transfer, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               A person such as the applicant in the main proceedings who, because his employment contract is suspended, is not actually performing his duties, is covered by the concept of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(d) of Directive 2001/23 in so far as that person is protected as an employee under the national law concerned, which is, however, a matter for the referring court to verify. Subject to that verification, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the rights and obligations arising from that person’s employment contract must be considered to have been transferred to the transferee, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the directive.

               3.

               The third question raised by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (District Court, Faro, Portugal) is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case C-381/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/17

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-381/06)
   (2006/C 261/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and J. Enegren)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.


title: Case T-163/09: Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2010 — Martinet v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/35

         Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2010 — Martinet v Commission
   (Case T-163/09) (1)

   2011/C 55/63
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-315/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Monselice by order of that court of 12 July 2005 in LIDL Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Monselice by order of that court of 12 July 2005 in LIDL Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR)
   (Case C-315/05)
   (2005/C 281/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Monselice (Italy) of 12 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between LIDL Italia Srl and Comune di Arcole (VR) on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Directive 2000/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs be interpreted as meaning, in respect of pre-packaged foodstuffs under Article 1 thereof, that the obligations provided for therein, and in particular those in Articles 2, 3 and 12, are imposed only on the producer of the pre-packaged food product?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative, must Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13/EC be interpreted as precluding the possibility that a mere distributor, located within a Member State, of a foodstuff pre-packaged (as defined in Article 1 of Directive 2000/13/EC) by a trader in another Member State, may be held liable for an infringement alleged by a public authority involving a discrepancy between the value (in this case percentage of alcohol content) stated on the label by the producer of the pre-packaged foodstuff, and may thus be penalised, even if that distributor simply markets the foodstuff in the form in which it is delivered by the producer of the food product itself?

      (1)  OJ L 109 of 06.05.2000, p. 29.


title: Case C-232/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 — Validity — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Product concerned — Product under consideration — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/4

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-232/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 - Validity - Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China - Product concerned - Product under consideration - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 156/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Portmeirion Group UK Ltd

      Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-175/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 17 — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Additional payments — Child protection association — ‘Children’s village parents’ — Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ — Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ — Definition)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry
   (Case C-175/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 17 - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Additional payments - Child protection association - ‘Children’s village parents’ - Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ - Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ - Definition))
   (2017/C 309/12)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik

      Defendant: SOS-Lapsikylä ry

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot apply to paid work, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in caring for children in a family-like environment, relieving the person principally responsible for that task, where it is not established that the working time as a whole is not measured or predetermined or it may be determined by the worker himself, which is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-378/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) lodged on 15 September 2006 — Clear Channel Belgium S.A. v City of Liège

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) lodged on 15 September 2006 — Clear Channel Belgium S.A. v City of Liège
   (Case C-378/06)
   (2006/C 261/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Clear Channel Belgium S.A.

      Defendant: City of Liège

      Intervener: J.-C. Decaux Belgium S.A.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a contract classified as a ‘licence in respect of public land’ exclude the application of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, where, notwithstanding the award by the municipal authority to the contractor of the exclusive right to exploit for profit advertising space on street furniture supplied to the municipal authority, the contract requires the contractor to supply a number of services for the benefit of the authority (provision of street furniture, and of space for municipal posters)?

               2.

               Where there is no price in the classic sense of that term, may the valuable consideration for the services supplied to the municipal authority consist in the waiver by the authority of advertising revenue from which the financial payments and contributions in kind and display fees provided for in the contract are, as in this case, to be deducted?

               3.

               Does the principal or ancillary nature of the various obligations provided for in the contract have any relevance to the application of the aforementioned directive?

      (1)  OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-473/12: Action brought on 1 November 2012 — Aer Lingus v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/51

         Action brought on 1 November 2012 — Aer Lingus v Commission
   (Case T-473/12)
   2013/C 26/104
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aer Lingus Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Bacon, D. Scannell, Barristers, and A. Burnside, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul (or, in the alternative, partially annul) the Commission Decision of 25 July 2012 in State aid case SA.29064 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law in concluding, in the Contested Decision, that the lower rate tax constituted unlawful State aid. Specifically, the Commission erred in characterising the higher rate tax as the ‘normal’ rate of tax, for the purposes of determining whether the lower rate tax constituted a selective advantage. Since the higher rate tax was invalid pursuant to directly effective provisions of EU law, it could not properly be regarded as the ‘normal’ reference rate for this purpose. For the same reasons the Commission erred in finding that the airlines subject to the lower rate tax benefited from an advantage corresponding to €8 per passenger.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that even if the Commission could properly characterise the lower rate tax as constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the order for recovery of the aid from the airlines subject to the lower rate tax, in circumstances where the higher rate tax was also liable to be repaid simultaneously, infringed the principle of legal certainty, the principle of effectiveness and the principle of good administration. Accordingly, the Contested Decision, in ordering recovery of the aid, was in breach of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (1).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant also erred in law and fact by identifying the airline operators subject to the lower rate tax as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid in the amount of EUR 8 per passenger, and ordering recovery of the aid on that basis, in circumstances where the Commission acknowledged that the burden of the tax may have been carried by passengers, who were therefore the primary beneficiaries of the lower rate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that since it is impossible to recoup the EUR 8 per passenger retrospectively from the passengers that benefited from the lower rate tax, the recovery order in these circumstances operates as an additional tax on the relevant airlines, and thereby amounts to unlawful penalisation of those airlines rather than the restoration of the situation prior to the grant of the alleged aid. This is disproportionate and a breach of the principle of equal treatment and therefore a further breach of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant gave no, or insufficient, reasons for ordering recovery of the aid and for quantifying the aid in the amount of EUR 8 per passenger.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)


C 166/12              EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.5.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-251/96 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/20)                                                    (98/C 166/24)
By order of 29 October 1997, the President of the Court          By order of 29 January 1998 the President of the Sixth
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the               Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
removal from the register of Case C-251/96: (Reference           Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di       Case C-305/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Rovigo): Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Cordella.         the Cour du Travail, Mons): UniversiteÂ Catholique de
                                                                 Louvain v Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez.
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-224/96 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-325/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/21)
                                                                                (98/C 166/25)
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the               By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-224/96: Promotion            removal from the register of Case C-325/97: Commission
LeÂopold SA v European Parliament.                               of the European Communities v Federal Republic of
                                                                 Germany.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/22)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-238/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/26)
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              By order of 18 February 1998 the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (reference for a       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Arif           removal from the register of Case C-238/97: Commission
Altiney v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                              of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/96 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-142/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/27)
                        (98/C 166/23)
                                                                 By order of 3 March 1998 the President of        the Sixth
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the           European
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Communities has ordered the removal from the    register of
removal from the register of Case C-142/97: Commission           Case     C-146/96:     Commission     of  the    European
of the European Communities v Italian Republic.                  Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.


title: Joined Cases C-239/11 P, C-489/11 P and C-498/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Siemens AG (C-239/11 P), Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (C-489/11 P), Toshiba Corp. (C-498/11 P) v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Market sharing — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Proof of the infringement — Single and continuous infringement — Distortion of the evidence — Probative value of statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant — Fines — Starting amount — Reference year — Deterrent multiplier — Powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Siemens AG (C-239/11 P), Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (C-489/11 P), Toshiba Corp. (C-498/11 P) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-239/11 P, C-489/11 P and C-498/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Market sharing - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Proof of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Distortion of the evidence - Probative value of statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant - Fines - Starting amount - Reference year - Deterrent multiplier - Powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons)
   2014/C 52/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Siemens AG (represented by: I. Brinker, C. Steinle and M. Hörster, Rechtsanwälte (C-239/11 P)), Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (represented by: R. Denton, Solicitor, and K. Haegeman, advocaat (C-489/11 P)), Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Dawes, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, and S. Sakellariou, dikigoros (C 498/11 P))

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, R. Sauer, N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: M. Schneider and M. Moustakali, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-110/07 Siemens v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the market in gas insulated switchgear projects or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing, the rights of the defence, the principle of equal treatment and the duty to state reasons — Distortion of the evidence — Erroneous application of the rules on limitation of actions — Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Siemens AG, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

      OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-378/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (MEDINET) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark MEDINET — Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET — Claim of seniority of the earlier national and international marks — Earlier marks in colour and Community trade mark applied for not designating any specific colour — Signs not identical — Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Expediency of oral proceedings — Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (MEDINET)
   (Case T-378/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark MEDINET - Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET - Claim of seniority of the earlier national and international marks - Earlier marks in colour and Community trade mark applied for not designating any specific colour - Signs not identical - Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Expediency of oral proceedings - Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 108/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2011 (Case R 1598/2010-4) relating to a claim of seniority of earlier marks in an application for registration of the figurative sign MEDINET as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-40/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för högskolan, Sweden) — Kaj Lyyski v Umeå universitet (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 CE — Obstacles — Vocational training — Teachers — Refusal to admit to a training course a candidate employed in a school in another Member State)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för högskolan, Sweden) — Kaj Lyyski v Umeå universitet
   (Case C-40/05) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 39 CE - Obstacles - Vocational training - Teachers - Refusal to admit to a training course a candidate employed in a school in another Member State)
   (2007/C 42/05)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Överklagandenämnden för högskolan
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kaj Lyyski

      Defendant: Umeå universitet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Överklagandenämnden för högskolan (Board of Appeals for Higher Education) — Interpretation of Community law and in particular of Article 12 EC — Professional training scheme organised to remedy a lack of qualified teachers in a Member State intended to allow teachers employed in schools to obtain the qualifications necessary for a contract unlimited as to time — Refusal to admit a candidate who is a national of that Member State but employed in a school in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Community law does not preclude national legislation which organises, on a provisional basis, training courses intended in the short term to meet the need for qualified teachers in a State from requiring that candidates for that training be employed in a school in that State, provided, however, that the manner in which that legislation is applied does not lead to the exclusion, as a matter of principle, of all applications made by teachers who are not employed in such a school without prior individual assessment of the merits of those applications in the light, inter alia, of the aptitude of the person concerned, and the possibility of monitoring the practical part of the training received or possibly of exempting that person from it.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Joined Cases C-611/10 and C-612/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Waldemar Hudziński v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel — Familienkasse (C-611/10), Jarosław Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach — Familienkasse (C-612/10) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) — Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU — Temporary work in a Member State other than that in which work is normally carried out — Family benefits — Applicable legislation — Possibility for child benefit to be granted by the Member State in which the temporary work is carried out but which is not the competent State — Application of a rule of national law against overlapping of benefits which excludes that benefit in the case where a comparable benefit is received in another State)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Waldemar Hudziński v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel — Familienkasse (C-611/10), Jarosław Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach — Familienkasse (C-612/10)
   (Joined Cases C-611/10 and C-612/10) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) - Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU - Temporary work in a Member State other than that in which work is normally carried out - Family benefits - Applicable legislation - Possibility for child benefit to be granted by the Member State in which the temporary work is carried out but which is not the competent State - Application of a rule of national law against overlapping of benefits which excludes that benefit in the case where a comparable benefit is received in another State)
   2012/C 227/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Waldemar Hudziński (C-611/10), Jarosław Wawrzyniak (C-612/10)

      Defendants: Agentur für Arbeit Wesel — Familienkasse (C-611/10), Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach — Familienkasse (C-612/10)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 14a(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Determination of the applicable law — Right of a migrant worker to receive in the Member State in which he works family allowances for his children resident in his Member State of origin — Situation of a self-employed person working in his Member State of origin and carrying out employed work in another Member State for a period of four months

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, which is not designated under those provisions as being the competent State, from granting child benefits in accordance with its national law to a migrant worker who is working temporarily within its territory in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, including in the case where it is established, first, that the worker concerned has not suffered any legal disadvantage by reason of the fact that he has exercised his freedom of movement, since he has retained his entitlement to family benefits of the same kind in the competent Member State, and, second, that neither that worker nor the child for whom the benefit is claimed habitually resides within the territory of the Member State in which the temporary work was carried out.;

               2.

               The rules of the FEU Treaty on the free movement of workers must be interpreted as precluding the application, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Paragraph 65 of the Law on income tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), in so far as it involves, not a reduction in the amount of the benefit corresponding to the amount of a comparable benefit received in another State, but exclusion from that benefit.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-69/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA (No need to adjudicate — Public procurement — European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) — Cancellation of the call for tenders — Action which has become devoid of purpose)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA
   (Case T-69/05) (1)

   (No need to adjudicate - Public procurement - European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) - Cancellation of the call for tenders - Action which has become devoid of purpose)
   (2007/C 315/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: initially, A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, and subsequently by A. Cuvillier and S. Gabbi, Agents, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 3 December 2004 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure concerning the supply of IT services for establishing an extranet between Member States' national agencies, the EFSA and the Commission, and also of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this case.

               2.

               The EFSA shall pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-606/14 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Portovesme Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Portovesme Srl — Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity — Decision declaring the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/13

         Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Portovesme Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-606/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Portovesme Srl - Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity - Decision declaring the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market))
   (2017/C 104/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Portovesme Srl (represented by: G. Dore, M. Liberati, A. Vinci and F. Ciulli, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Portovesme Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.03.2015


title: Case C-297/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts — Articles 15(1)(c) and 16(1) — Meaning of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile — Transaction-management contract designed to achieve the economic objective pursued by means of a brokerage contract concluded beforehand in the course of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile — Close link)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL
   (Case C-297/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in respect of consumer contracts - Articles 15(1)(c) and 16(1) - Meaning of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile - Transaction-management contract designed to achieve the economic objective pursued by means of a brokerage contract concluded beforehand in the course of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile - Close link))
   (2016/C 068/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rüdiger Hobohm

      Defendants: Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG, Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 16(1) of that regulation, must, in so far as it relates to the contract concluded in the context of a commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by the professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to a contract concluded between a consumer and a professional which on its own does not come within the scope of the commercial or professional activity ‘directed’ by that professional ‘to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, but which is closely linked to a contract concluded beforehand by those same parties in the context of such an activity. It is for the national court to determine whether the constituent elements of that link are present, in particular whether the parties to both of those contracts are identical in law or in fact, whether the economic objective of those contracts concerning the same specific subject-matter is identical and whether the second contract complements the first contract in that it seeks to make it possible for the economic objective of that first contract to be achieved.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-361/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/16

         Action brought on 26 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-361/05)
   (2005/C 296/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by I. Martínez del Peral and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that

                           —

                           by failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2), and Article 14 of Council Directive 99/31/EC (3), in that it has not taken the measures necessary to ensure that the landfill sites at Níjar and Hoyo de Miguel comply with the obligations arising from those directives;

                           —

                           by also failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, and Article 14 of Directive 99/31/EC, in that it has not taken the measures necessary to ensure that the landfill site at Cueva del Mojón complies with the obligations arising from those directives, not having received from the Spanish authorities information which contradicts the compla int received in respect of the landfill site at Cueva del Mojón, situated in La Mojonera,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions cited in the previous paragraph;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The persistence of the problem with those landfill sites has led to significant degradation of the environment over a prolonged period of time, and without any intervention by the competent authorities, in spite of requests by the Commission.
   The waste in the illegal landfill sites releases into the soil, air and water chemical substances which endanger human health, contaminates surface and ground waters and the atmosphere, as well as plants and animals. Moreover, the illegal incineration and the fires which ignite spontaneously because of the inflammable nature of the waste in the unsupervised landfill sites give rise to many fires with disastrous consequences for the environment.

      (1)  of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194 of 25.7.75, p. 39.

      (2)  of 18 March 1991OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

      (3)  of 26 April 1999, on the landfill of waste, OJ l 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Case F-55/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Tiralongo v Commission (Staff cases — Former temporary agent — Actions — Action for damages — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Tiralongo v Commission
   (Case F-55/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Former temporary agent - Actions - Action for damages - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 116/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by: F. and R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Order requiring the Commission of the European Communities to compensate the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the unlawful conduct of the European Anti-Fraud Office in particular in connection with the extension of his temporary staff contract
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007, p. 43.


title: Case C-426/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 12 August 2011 — Mark Alemo-Herron and others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 12 August 2011 — Mark Alemo-Herron and others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd
   (Case C-426/11)
   2011/C 311/40
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mark Alemo-Herron, Sandra Tipping, Christopher Anderson, Stacey Aris, Audrey Beckford, Lee Bennett, Delroy Carby, Vishnu Chetty, Deborah Cimitan, Victoria Clifton, Claudette Cummings, David Curtis, Stephen Flin, Patience Ijelekhai, Rosemarie Lee, Roxanne Lee, Vivian Ling, Michelle Nicholas, Lansdail Nugent, Anne O'Connor, Shirley Page, Alan Peel, Mathew Pennington, Laura Steward

      Defendant: Parkwood Leisure Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where, as in the present case, an employee has a contractual right as against the transferor to the benefit of terms and conditions which are negotiated and agreed by a third party collective bargaining body from time to time, and such right is recognised under national law as dynamic rather than static in nature as between the employee and the transferor employer, does article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 read with Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG [2006] ECR 1-2397-

                           (a)

                           require that such right be protected and enforceable against the transferee in the event of a relevant transfer to which the Directive applies; or

                           (b)

                           entitle national courts to hold that such right is protected and enforceable against the transferee in the event of a relevant transfer to which the Directive applies; or

                           (c)

                           prohibit national courts from holding that such right is protected and enforceable against the transferee in the event of a relevant transfer to which that Directive applies?

               2.

               In circumstances where a Member State has fulfilled its obligations to implement the minimum requirements of article 3 of Directive 2001/23 but the question arises whether the implementing measures are to be interpreted as going beyond those requirements in a way which is favourable to the protected employees by providing dynamic contractual rights as against the transferee, is it the case that the courts of the Member State are free to apply national law to the interpretation of the implementing legislation subject, always, to such interpretation not being contrary to Community law, or must some other approach to interpretation be adopted and, if so, what approach?

               3.

               In the present case, there being no contention by the employer that the standing of the employees' dynamic right under national law to collectively agreed terms and conditions would amount to breach of that employer's rights under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, is the national court free to apply the interpretation of TUPE contended for by the employees?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses
   OJ L 82, p. 16


               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/1

         2010/C 195/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010

      OJ C 134, 22.5.2010

      OJ C 113, 1.5.2010

      OJ C 100, 17.4.2010

      OJ C 80, 27.3.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-219/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AGIPA — Earlier national word mark AGIPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Comparison of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/69

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)
   (Case T-219/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AGIPA - Earlier national word mark AGIPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Comparison of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/153
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 January 2011 (Case R 556/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr José Luis Otero González and Apli-Agipa SAS in so far as it dismisses Mr Otero González’s appeal and grants Apli-Agipa registration of the Community word mark AGIPA in respect of the ‘photographs; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes; office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in Class 16 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Otero González;

               4.

               Orders Apli-Agipa to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-442/04: Action brought on 21 October 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/36

         Action brought on 21 October 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-442/04)
   (2004/C 300/70)
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1 to 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 (1) of 19 July 2004 fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries, which implement Articles 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (2) of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 (4) and (EC) No 2027/95 (5); and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination

               (a)

               because Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004, which is challenged in the present action, is a measure implementing Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, specifically Articles 3 and 6 thereof relating to the maximum annual fishing effort for each Member State and for the various fishing areas and fisheries laid down in those provisions, has been challenged by the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-36/04) in so far as the years 1998 to 2002 are used as the reference period. That entails discrimination against the Spanish fleet on grounds of nationality, since for those years, pursuant to provisions in the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal to the European Communities and in Regulations (EC) Nos 685/95 and 2027/95, the Spanish fleet's access was limited to ICES areas V b, VI, VII and VIII a, b, d and e;

               (b)

               because the establishment of the sensitive area referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, implemented by the contested regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004), also discriminates against the Spanish fleet, since the new sensitive area partly coincides with the so-called ‘Irish box’, where restrictions apply to the Spanish fleet in accordance with the Accession Treaty for the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal.

         Misuse of power:
   because protection of the sensitive area provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, implemented by Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 challenged in this action, should have been established by applying the procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 850/1998, which lays down technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, and by reference to all the areas in respect of which it has been scientifically established that this condition is fulfilled.

      (1)  OJ L 258 of 5.8.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 289 of 7.11.2003, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 261 of 20.10.1995, p. 5.

      (4)  OJ L 71 of 31.3.1995, p. 5.

      (5)  OJ L 199 of 24.8.1995, p. 1.


title: Case T-423/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — De Masi v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council — Response to initial requests after an equitable arrangement — No confirmatory decision — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/32

         Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — De Masi v Commission
   (Case T-423/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council - Response to initial requests after an equitable arrangement - No confirmatory decision - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 293/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Fischer-Lescano, Professor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Baquero Cruz and F. Erlbacher, then J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions allegedly contained, first, in the letter of 20 May 2016, and second, in the letter of 13 July 2016, responding to the requests for access to the documents of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’, submitted by the applicant on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2)

               Mr Fabio De Masi shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06: References for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by orders of that court of  10  and  12 January 2006  in Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (Case C-37/06) and ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (Case C-58/06) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/2

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by orders of that court of 10 and 12 January 2006 in Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (Case C-37/06) and ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (Case C-58/06) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06)
   (2006/C 96/03)
   Language of the cases: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by orders of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 10 and 12 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 2006 and 3 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (Case C-37/06) and ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (Case C-58/06) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1) valid inasmuch as it links the grant of an export refund to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC (2) on the protection of animals during transport?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98, according to which export refunds are not to be paid for animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of all elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 615/98, that the Directive on the protection of animals during transport was not complied with, compatible with the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  OJ L 82, p. 19.

      (2)  OJ L 340, p. 17.


title: Case C-60/05: Judegment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — WWF Italia, Gruppo Ornitologico Lombardo (GOL), Lega abolizione della caccia (LAC), Lega antivivisezionista (LAV) v Regione Lombardia (Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409/EEC — Derogations from the system of protection)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/5

         Judegment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — WWF Italia, Gruppo Ornitologico Lombardo (GOL), Lega abolizione della caccia (LAC), Lega antivivisezionista (LAV) v Regione Lombardia
   (Case C-60/05) (1)

   (Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409/EEC - Derogations from the system of protection)
   (2006/C 178/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: WWF Italia, Gruppo Ornitologico Lombardo (GOL), Lega abolizione della caccia (LAC), Lega antivivisezionista (LAV)

      Defendant: Regione Lombardia

      Intervener: Associazione migratoristi italiani
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Conditions for exercise by the Member States of the derogation from the prohibition on killing and capture of protected species — Finch and brambling species
   Operative part of the judgement

               1.

               Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds requires the Member States, irrespective of the internal allocation of powers prescribed by the national legal system, upon adoption of measures implementing that provision to ensure that, in all cases of application of the derogation provided for therein and for all the protected species, authorised hunting does not exceed a ceiling consistent with the restriction on that hunting to small numbers imposed by that provision, and that ceiling must be determined on the basis of strict scientific data.

               2.

               National implementing provisions concerning the ‘small numbers’ referred to in Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 must enable the authorities responsible for authorising hunting derogations in respect of birds of a given species to rely on criteria which are sufficiently precise as to the quantitative ceilings to be complied with.

               3.

               Upon implementation of Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409, the Member States are required to ensure that, irrespective of the number and identity of the authorities within their territory responsible for applying that provision, the amount of authorised hunting derogations in respect of each protected species by each of those authorities does not exceed the ceiling compatible with the restriction on that hunting to ‘small numbers’, fixed for that species for the entire national territory.

               4.

               The obligation on the Member States to ensure that hunting of birds is carried out only in ‘small numbers’, in accordance with Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409, requires that the administrative procedures provided for are organised in such a way that both the decisions of the competent authorities authorising hunting derogations and the manner in which those decisions are applied are subject to effective control exercised in a timely manner.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-72/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/9/EC — Asylum policy — Asylum seekers — Reception — Minimum standards — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-72/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/9/EC - Asylum policy - Asylum seekers - Reception - Minimum standards - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 96/26)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and C. O'Reilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-412/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/20

         Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-412/07)
   (2007/C 247/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent, M. Petite, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directives had to be transposed expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 76.


title: Case T-206/08: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Wine sector — Prohibition on new vine plantations — National monitoring systems — Lump-sum financial correction — Procedural guarantees — Error of assessment — Proportionality)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-206/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Wine sector - Prohibition on new vine plantations - National monitoring systems - Lump-sum financial correction - Procedural guarantees - Error of assessment - Proportionality)
   2012/C 73/49
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case F-54/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Joseph v Commission (Staff cases — Contract staff — Action out of time — Unforeseeable circumstances — Recruitment — Articles 3a, 3b and 85 of the CEOS — Duration of the contract — Commission Decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services — Article 12 of the GIP on the procedures governing the engagement and the use of contract staff at the Commission — Equal treatment)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/71

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Joseph v Commission
   (Case F-54/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contract staff - Action out of time - Unforeseeable circumstances - Recruitment - Articles 3a, 3b and 85 of the CEOS - Duration of the contract - Commission Decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services - Article 12 of the GIP on the procedures governing the engagement and the use of contract staff at the Commission - Equal treatment)
   (2008/C 209/130)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Anne Joseph (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Fernandez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the contract employing the applicant as a member of the contract staff, in so far as its duration is not fixed at 3 years but at 15 months, on the basis, first, of the Commission decision of 28 April 2004 relating to the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services and, secondly, on Article 12 of the General Implementing Provisions on the procedures governing the engagement and the use of the contract staff at the Commission.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2008, p. 50.