title: Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 10 July 2003 in Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Prior administrative procedure — No complaint — Application manifestly inadmissible — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
18.10.2003              EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 251/1
                                                                            I
                                                                      (Information)
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          2.    Mr. Schulte is ordered to pay the costs.
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
                           of 4 April 2003
          in Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte (1)
(Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantities — Regulation (EEC)
No 2187/93 — Compensation payable to producers — Heirs
and those of similar status — Measure of the national                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
authorities — Time bar — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible
                  and in part clearly unfounded)                                                           (First Chamber)
                          (2003/C 251/01)                                                                  of 10 July 2003
                   (Language of the case: German)                               in Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of
                                                                                Auditors of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                     the European Court Reports)                                (Appeal — Officials — Prior administrative procedure —
                                                                                No complaint — Application manifestly inadmissible —
                                                                                Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded in part)
In Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte, residing in Delbrück
(Germany) (Lawyer: R. Freise) — Appeal against the judgment                                               (2003/C 251/02)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) of 7 February 2002 in Case T-261/94                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Schulte v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II-441, seek-
ing to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent:                                             the European Court Reports)
A.-M. Colaert, assisted by M. Núñez Müller) and Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr, assisted by
M. Núñez Müller) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed                         In Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro, residing in Messina
of R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris                           (Italy) (Lawyer: G. Monforte) — appeal against the order of the
and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 4 April                      Chamber) of 27 September 2002 in Case T-254/01 Di Pietro v
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                                Court of Auditors [2002] ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-929, by
                                                                                which the Court declared manifestly inadmissible the applica-
                                                                                tion by Mr Di Pietro for the annulment of the decision of the
                                                                                Court of Auditors of 22 February 2001 appointing Mr Michel
                                                                                Hervé to the post of Secretary General of that institution, the
1.   The appeal is dismissed;                                                   other party to the proceedings being Court of Auditors of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       18.10.2003
European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, M. Bavendamm                        member countries and aligning exemptions from tax and
and I. Ní Riagáin Düro) — the Court (First Chamber),                             from customs duty in the context of travel?
composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
                                                                          ( 1)  OJ L 350, p. 12.
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          ( 2)  OJ L 345, p. 9.
                                                                          ( 3)  OJ L 105, p. 1.
                                                                          ( 4)  OJ L 133, p. 6.
1.   The appeal is dismissed;
2.   Mr. Di Pietro is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
                                                                          Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between
                                                                          1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG, 3. Touwen
                                                                          & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf Atochem
                                                                          Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
                                                                          Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de
                                                                                toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
für ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien by order of that Court                                             (Case C-281/03)
of 30 September 2002 in the case of DLD Trading
Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic                                                 (2003/C 251/04)
                             of Austria
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (Case C-216/03)                                 European Communities by judgment of the College van
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
                          (2003/C 251/03)                                 and Industry) of 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                          on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                          between 1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    3. Touwen & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für                    Atochem Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna)               Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de toelating
of 30 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on                   van bestrijdingsmiddelen on the following question:
19 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of DLD
Trading Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic
of Austria on the following questions:                                    Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay
                                                                          down additional conditions for the placing on the market and
                                                                          use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
1.   Are Regulation (EC) No 3316/94 (1) and Regulation (EC)               included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?
     No 2744/981 (2) compatible with the provisions of
     Community law relating to exemptions from customs
     duties, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (3) and
     the principle of the Customs union?
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
     Did the retroactive entry into force of Regulation (EC)              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
     No 2744/98 infringe the principles of legal certainty or             Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
     the protection of legitimate expectations?                           Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between Arch
                                                                          Timber Protection BV and College voor de toelating
                                                                          van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
3.   Are Article 5(8) of Directive 69/169/EEC (4) and the                      Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal
     national provisions transposing it, namely Paragraph 3a
     of the Verbrauchssteuer-befreiungsverordnung (Regulation                                       (Case C-281/03)
     on exemptions from excise duties) and the Umsatzsteuer-
     Verordnung, (Turnover Tax Regulations) (BGBl II                                                (2003/C 251/05)
     No 326/1997), incompatible with the purposes of harmo-
     nising turnover tax and excise duty within the Member                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     States, liberalising and facilitating travel to and from non-        European Communities by judgment of the College van


title: Case C-453/12: Action brought on 9 October 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/17

         Action brought on 9 October 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-453/12)
   2012/C 379/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.-P-Keppenne, agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by not adopting the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, from 1 July 2011, the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations and under the notional fund scheme provided for in those Regulations;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant claims that the Council infringed Articles 83 and 83a of the Staff Regulations and the provisions contained in Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, by refusing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation which proposes to adjust, from 1 July 2011, the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Union, even though according to the binding wording of those provisions the annual adjustment of that rate is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council with no discretion.
   According to the applicant, the refusal of the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a regulation and, accordingly, to lower the rate of contribution by officials, infringes not only Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations, by requiring the officials to make an excessive contribution, but also Article 83a(1) of the Staff Regulations, by placing at risk the balance of the notional fund scheme which guarantees the pensions of officials and other agents.
   Finally, according to the Commission, by laying down the method of calculation of the rate of contribution by officials and servants precisely in Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, the European Union legislature left the Council with no discretion and obliged it to adopt the Commission’s proposals within a reasonable period of time.


title: Case C-533/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Article 4(1) — Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work — Justification — Grounds of general interest — Obligation to review — Scope)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy
   (Case C-533/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 4(1) - Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work - Justification - Grounds of general interest - Obligation to review - Scope))
   (2015/C 155/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Työtuomioistuin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

      Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore,

               —

               the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1).

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-427/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta s.p.a., incorporating Banca Nazionale Dell’Agricoltura s.p.a. v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/26

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 31 August 2010 — Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta s.p.a., incorporating Banca Nazionale Dell’Agricoltura s.p.a. v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
      (Case C-427/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/44)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte Suprema di Cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta spa, incorporating Banca Nazionale Dell’Agricoltura spa

         Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the principles of effectiveness, non-discrimination and tax neutrality in respect of value added tax preclude a national framework or practice that construes the right of the purchaser/client to reimbursement of VAT paid in error as a right to a payment due under the ordinary law, unlike that exercised by the principal debtor (supplier/provider of the service), with a time limit for the former significantly longer than that applied to the latter, such that the claim of the purchaser/client, brought when the time limit for the supplier/provider of the service has already expired, can give rise to an order for reimbursement against the latter, who can no longer claim reimbursement from the tax authority, and with no provision for any bridging instrument to prevent conflicts or disputes between the proceedings brought or to be brought before the various courts?

                  2.

                  Furthermore, are the above-mentioned principles compatible with a national practice or case-law that allows a reimbursement order to be made in favour of the purchaser/client against the supplier/provider of the service that has not brought its reimbursement claim before another court within the time limits imposed on it, relying on a judicial interpretation, implemented by administrative practice, that the transaction was subject to VAT?


title: Case C-64/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2015 — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 12 February 2015 — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-64/15)
   (2015/C 138/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BP Europa SE

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions which it lays down are fulfilled only in the case where the total quantity of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement has not arrived at their destination, or can that rule, account being taken of Article 10(6) of Directive 2008/118/EC, also be applied to cases in which only a portion of the excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement fails to arrive at the destination?

               2.

               Is Article 20(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement does not end until the consignee has fully unloaded the means of transport which has arrived at his premises, with the result that a deficit detected during unloading is deemed to have been detected while the movement was still ongoing?

               3.

               Does Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 7(2)(a), of Directive 2008/118/EC preclude a national provision under which the competence of the Member State of destination to levy duty (apart from being excluded in the cases provided for in Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC) is made subject only to the detection of the occurrence of an irregularity and the impossibility of determining the place where that irregularity occurred, or is it also necessary to establish that, by being removed from the duty suspension arrangement, the excise goods have been released for consumption?

               4.

               Is Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2008/118/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, where an irregularity as provided for in Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC has been detected, excise goods moved under a duty suspension arrangement which have not arrived at the destination must be assumed to have been released for consumption in all cases in which the proof of total destruction or irretrievable loss of the missing quantity required under Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC cannot be furnished?

      (1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).


title: Case T-452/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Western Digital and Western Digital Ireland v Commission

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/6

         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Western Digital and Western Digital Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-452/11)
   2011/C 305/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Western Digital Corp. (Dover, Delaware, United States) and Western Digital Ireland, Ltd (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: F. González Díaz, lawyer, and P. Stuart, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to produce the questionnaires sent by it to third parties during the first phase and second phase of its investigation into the proposed acquisition by Western Digital Corporation of Viviti Technologies Ltd. and into the proposed acquisition by Seagate of the hard disk drive business of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.;

               —

               Order the defendant to grant access to its pre-notification and post-notification file in the Seagate transaction, including, in particular, access to the non-confidential versions of any correspondence and records of contacts between Seagate, Samsung, and the Commission until the notification date, and any internal communications within the Commission – in both the Seagate/Samsung and Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies cases – concerning the prioritization of the two transactions;

               —

               Annul the priority decision included in the Decision (2011/C 165/04) of the European Commission of May 30, 2011, in Case COMP/M.6203 – Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies, to open a second phase investigation with regard to the proposed concentration, in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 (1) (OJ 2011 C 165, p. 3); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the defendant lacks the powers to adopt a priority rule based on the date of notification of a concentration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed an error of law and violated the general principles of fairness and good administration, as:

                           —

                           The priority rule chosen by the defendant has no basis in EU law, does not follow from settled case-law, and is not inherent in the merger control system;

                           —

                           The priority rule chosen by the defendant leads to unsound policy outcomes; and

                           —

                           The priority rule chosen by the commission violates general principles of law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached applicants’ legitimate expectations that the proposed acquisition by Western Digital Corporation of Viviti Technologies Ltd. would be assessed against the market structure that prevailed when it was signed, announced and pre-notified to the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of good administration, fairness, proportionality and non-discrimination, by imposing additional burdens on the applicants, and by not disclosing the fact that there was a parallel transaction affecting the same relevant markets.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case C-201/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014  — Smaranda Bara and Others v Președintele Casei Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate (CNAS), Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 22 April 2014 — Smaranda Bara and Others v Președintele Casei Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate (CNAS), Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)
   (Case C-201/14)
   2014/C 223/07
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Smaranda Bara and Others

      Defendants: Președintele Casei Națională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate (CNAS), Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are national tax authorities, as the body representing the competent ministry of a Member State, a financial institution within the meaning of Article 124 TFEU?

               2)

               Is it possible make provision, by means of a measure akin to an administrative measure, or indeed a protocol concluded between the national tax authorities and another State institution, for the transfer of the data base relating to the income earned by the citizens of a Member State from the national tax authorities to another institution of the Member State, without giving rise to a measure establishing privileged access, as defined in Article 124 TFEU?

               3)

               Is the transfer of the data base, the purpose of which is to impose an obligation on the citizens of the Member State to pay social security contributions, to the Member State institution for whose benefit the transfer is made covered by the concept of prudential considerations within the meaning of Article 124 TFEU?

               4)

               May personal data be processed by authorities for which such data were not intended where such an operation gives rise, retroactively, to financial loss?


title: Case C-464/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt — Austria) — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Legislation of a Member State prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the operation of low-prize gaming machines (‘kleines Glücksspiel’) where no licence has been granted by the competent authority — Restriction — Justification — Proportionality — Assessment of proportionality on the basis of both the objective of the legislation at the time of its adoption and its effects when implemented — Effects empirically and definitely determined)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/25

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt — Austria) — Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG v Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others
   (Case C-464/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Legislation of a Member State prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, the operation of low-prize gaming machines (‘kleines Glücksspiel’) where no licence has been granted by the competent authority - Restriction - Justification - Proportionality - Assessment of proportionality on the basis of both the objective of the legislation at the time of its adoption and its effects when implemented - Effects empirically and definitely determined))
   (2016/C 335/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Wiener Neustadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Admiral Casinos & Entertainment AG

      Defendants: Balmatic Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Robert Schnitzer, Suayip Polat KG, Ülkü Polat, Attila Juhas, Milazim Rexha

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a review of the proportionality of restrictive national legislation in the area of games of chance must be based not only on the objective of that legislation at the time of its adoption, but also on the effects of the legislation, assessed after its adoption.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 17 October 1995 in Joined Cases C-59/94 and C-64/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Pau): Ministre des Finances v. Société Pardo & Fils and Camicas Sarl (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Beverages - Preparations of wines of fresh grapes - Sangria)

text:
No C 315/4              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 11 . 95
fisheries and aquaculture ( OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1 ) and                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Commission Decision 92/593/EEC of 21 December 1992 on
                                                                                ( Second Chamber)
a multiannual guidance programme for the fishing fleet of
the United Kingdom for the period 1993 to 1996 pursuant                                  of 17 October 1995
to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 ( OJ 1992 L 401 ,          in Joined Cases C-59/94 and C-64/94 ( references for a
p. 33 ), as well as certain general principles of Community         preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Pau ): Ministre
law, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,              des Finances v. Societe Pardo & Fils and Camicas Sari f 1 )
President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
                                                                    (Common Customs Tariff — Tariffheadings — Beverages
( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                   — Preparations of wines of fresh grapes — Sangria)
Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,                                           ( 95/C 315/07 )
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; Lynn Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 October 1995 , in which it ruled that:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
1 . Commission Decision 92/593/EEC of 21 December
     1992 on a multiannual guidance programme for the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     fishing fleet of the United Kingdom for the period 1 993                published in the European Court Reports)
     to 1996 pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 4028/86 must be interpreted as enabling the United
     Kingdom to limit the number of days a year that vessels
     over 1 0 metres in length may spend at sea in so far as a      In Joined Cases C-59/94 and C-64/94 : reference to the
     maximum of 45 % of the overall target set in that              Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty from the Cour
     decision may be achieved by measures other than                d'Appel ( Court of Appeal ), Pau , for a preliminary ruling in
     reductions in the capacity of the fishing fleet. The           the proceedings pending before that court between Ministre
     decision does not preclude that Member State from              des Finances and Societe Pardo et Fils ( Case C-59/94 ) and
     adopting technical conservation measures, provided             between Ministre des Finances and Camicas Sari ( Case
     that they have been approved by the Commission .               C-64/94 ) on the interpretation of headings 2205 and 2206
                                                                    of the combined nomenclature of the Common Customs
                                                                    Tariff, in the versions laid down by Council Regulation
                                                                    ( EEC ) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
2 . The answers to the first question are not affected by the       statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
     fact that the Member State concerned did not achieve the       Tariff ( OJ 1987 L 256 , p. 1 ) and Commission Regulation
     targets set by the previous MAGP.                              ( EEC ) No 3174/88 of 21 Sepember 1988 amending Annex I
                                                                    to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
                                                                    statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
3 . Articles 6, 34, 39 and 40 (3) of the Treaty, Council            Tariff ( OJ 1988 L 298 , p. 1 ), the Court ( Second Chamber ),
     Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 ofl 7 December 1 992 on            composed of: G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), President of the
     the common organization of the market in fishery and           Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges;
     aquaculture products, Council Regulation (EEC)                 F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
     No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a                  judgment on 17 October 1995 , in which it rules :
     Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, the
     principle of equal treatment, the right to property, the
     freedom to pursue a trade or professional activity and
     the principle of proportionality do not preclude the           Heading 2205 of the combined nomenclature for the
     adoption by a Member State of measures of the kind             Common Customs Tariff, in the versions laid down in
     referred to in the first question.                             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on
                                                                    the tariff and and statistical nomenclature and on the
                                                                    Common Customs Tariff and Commission Regulation
4 . The answers given to the other questions can be affected        (EEC) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 amending
     by neither the nature of the stock caught by a vessel, nor     Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the
     the extent to which the restrictions in question affect        tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
     normal fishing, other operations ofindividual fishermen        Customs Tariff, is to be interpreted as covering a beverage
     and the market in fish, nor the opportunity given to a         described as 'sangria ' consisting of more than 50 % wine of
     national authority to make derogations in favour of            fresh grapes together with water, sugar and fruit
                                                                    extracts .
     particular sectors of the United Kingdom fishing
     fleet.
                                                                    (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 and OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case T-166/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Panzeri v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Panzeri v Parliament
   (Case T-166/16) (1)

   ((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid))
   (2017/C 221/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d'Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, A. Caiola, G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the General Secretariat of the Parliament of 11 February 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 83 764,34 and of the debit note relating thereto of the same date.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2008 in Case E-4/07 Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson v Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund) (Invalidity pension rights — Free movement of workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)

text:
               29.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 23/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 1 February 2008
   in Case E-4/07 Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson v Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund)

      (Invalidity pension rights — Free movement of workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)

   (2009/C 23/10)
   In Case E-4/07 between Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson and Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund) — Request to the Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), Iceland, concerning rules on the free movement of workers within the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur, and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, gave judgment on 1 February 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               the term ‘social security’, as it is to be understood under Article 29 EEA and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, covers the entitlement to an invalidity benefit that arises in pension fund schemes such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, including pensions based on projected rights;

               2.

               it is not compatible with Article 45(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to subject the entitlement to invalidity benefits based on projected rights, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, to the condition that a member of a pension fund must have paid contributions to a fund belonging to a certain group of funds for a specific period preceding the date of an accident and thereby exclude contributions paid into social security systems in other EEA States in relation to work there;

               3.

               under Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, persons shall present their claims in the State where they were resident and where they had social security entitlements at the time of their injury. However, the lodging of a claim with the relevant institution of another EEA State is without prejudice to the right to benefits under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. It is in any case for each institution concerned to make the final decision as to whether the claimant must be awarded the benefit claimed from that institution.


title: Case C-124/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Vossloh Laeis GmbH v Stadtwerke München GmbH
   (Case C-124/17)
   (2017/C 178/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Vergabekammer Südbayern

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vossloh Laeis GmbH

      Defendant: Stadtwerke München GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is legislation of a Member State that makes successful voluntary remedial measures (Selbstreinigung) by an economic operator subject to the condition that it clarifies the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct and the damage caused by it in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating authorities, but also with the contracting authority, compatible with the provisions of Article 80 of Directive 2014/25/EU (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU (2)?

               2.

               If Question (a) is answered in the negative: Must the second subparagraph of Article 57(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU be interpreted, in that context, as meaning that the relevant economic operator is, for there to be successful voluntary remedial measures, in any event required to clarify the facts for the contracting authority to such an extent that the latter may assess whether the measures taken (technical, organisational and personnel measures and compensation for damage) are appropriate and sufficient?

               3.

               For the optional grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU, the maximum period or time limit of exclusion is, pursuant to Article 57(7) of Directive 2014/24/EU, three years from the date of the relevant event. Is the fulfilment of the optional grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU to be understood as the relevant event or is the relevant date that on which the contracting entity has certain and reliable knowledge of the existence of the ground for exclusion?

               4.

               Accordingly, for the fulfilment of the conditions for exclusion under Article [57](4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU through participation of an economic operator in a cartel, is the relevant event within the meaning of Article [57](7) of Directive 2014/24/EU the termination of participation in the cartel or the contracting entity’s acquisition of certain and reliable knowledge of the participation in the cartel?

      (1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243).

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


title: Case C-252/10 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2010 in Case T-70/05: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/19

         Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2010 in Case T-70/05: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
   (Case C-252/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 221/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court.

               —

               Annul the decision of EMSA to reject the bid of the Appellant, submitted by the Appellant in tendering procedure EMSA C-1/01/04, relating to the contract entitled ‘SafeSeaNet Validation and further development’, and to award the contract to other tenderer.

               —

               Order EMSA to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant maintains that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, the Appellant submits that the General Court committed an error in law adopting an erroneous interpretation of the Financial Regulation (1), the Implementing Rules and Directive 92/50 (2) and especially Article 97 of the Financial Regulation, Article 138 of the Implementing Rules and article 17 par. 1 of Directive 92/50.

               Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by stating, in par 178 of its judgment, that since ED had an in-depth knowledge of the tender specifications it was in a position to deduce the relative advantages of the successful tenderer. The General Court appears herein to implicitly admit that the information provided by the contracting authority was limited. However, instead of annulling the contested decision, the General Court gives a fresh and wholly wrong interpretation of the duty to state reasons since it connects that to the personal qualities of the addressee of that decision. Moreover, the assumption of the General Court is wrong since the Appellant was unable (and remains so even today) to understand the relative advantages (if any) of the successful tenderer, especially since the General Court does not sufficiently motivate its Judgment in order to clearly identify them.

               Thirdly, the Appellant considers that the General Court appears to err in law by stating with regards to the plea as to the manifest error of assessment that the Appellant limited its arguments to general assertions and consequently failed to show whether, and in what way, the alleged errors affected the final outcome of the tenders’ evaluation. The court seems to contradict itself by rejecting the plea as to the insufficient statement of reasons, while at the same time, requiring ED to demonstrate ‘in detail’ the way the alleged errors are reflected in the evaluation committee's report.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
   OJ L 248, p. 1

      (2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts
   OJ L 209, p. 1


title: Case C-483/06: Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-483/06) (1)

   (2007/C 297/56)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-515/12: Action brought on 22 November 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/66

         Action brought on 22 November 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)
   (Case T-515/12)
   2013/C 26/131
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The English Cut, SL (Malaga, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in Case R 1673/2011-1, and declare that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the action brought by the opponent before OHIM should have been upheld and the decision of the Opposition Division to grant Community trade mark application No 8 868 747‘The English Cut’ (word mark) should have been annulled;

               —

               order the defendant and the other party opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The English Cut, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘The English Cut’, for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 868 747

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word and figurative marks ‘El Corte Inglés’ for goods in Classes 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(5) of that regulation.


title: Action brought on 2 August 1996 by Mutual Aid Administration Services NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-121/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 318 / 13
    on the market and administration of BST ('the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    moratorium') and breach of the principle of
     proportionality .                                                On 1 December 1995 the Commission adopted Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2781 /95 on the transport for the free supply to
    The latest renewal of the moratorium on BST expressly             Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan of rye
     permits Member States to 'carry out limited practical            flour .
     tests on the use of bovine somatotrophin'. Furthermore,
     the moratorium nowhere prohibits the placing on the              The transport of one of the lots was awarded to the
     market of products obtained from tested animals . It is          applicant. Annexed to the award was a schedule of 10 points
     solely concerned with BST and not with the sale of               containing extracts from the agreement between the
     foodstuffs obtained from treated animals . It appears de         European Community and the Georgian authorities . After
     facto disproportionate to inhibit the ability of academic        delivery the Commission sent to the applicant a statement of
     institutions to obtain free access, for the purpose of           account which concerned, inter alia, costs of dispatch to be
     clinical trials, to a product whose use in animals is            paid to the Georgian authorities . The applicant objects that
     recognized scientifically as harmless to humans, and to          no reference is made anywhere to the dispatch rate, not even
     require healthy animals to be sacrificed in such a               in the award and in the memorandum concerning the
     situation .                                                      abovementioned agreement. The applicant therefore
                                                                      considers that the costs of dispatch do not have to be paid to
— Infringement of the Final Act embodying the results                 the Georgian authorities and protests against a number of
     of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade                       decisions in which those costs are stated to be for its
     Negotiations .                                                   account .
     In the applicant's view, the Commission's decision
     refusing to proceed with the inclusion of BST in Annex II
     to the Regulation may seriously affect non-EC producers
     who request an authorization to place on the market
     foodstuffs from animals treated with BST.
                                                                      Action brought on 8 August 1996 by Service pour le
                                                                      groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-123 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318 /27 )
Action brought on 2 August 1996 by Mutual Aid
Administration Services NV against the Commission of the                              (Language of the case: French)
                     European Communities
                        ( Case T-121 /96 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                          ( 96/C 318/26 )                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1 996 by
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Service pour le groupement d'acquisitions ( SGA ),
                                                                      established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                      Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Beatrix de Bourbon .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1 996 by
Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of Antwerp
( Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar,         The applicant claims that the Court should :
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of R. Faltz, 6 rue Heinrich Heine .                                   — annul the Commission 's decision notified to SGA on
                                                                          5 Tune 1996 not to investigate the complaint lodged on
                                                                          4 July 1994 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare, in accordance with Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
— annul the contested decision(s ), a copy of which is                    that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
     included in the documents annexed to the application,
                                                                          liability and caused SGA damage which must be made
     and consequently hold that the applicant is not obliged
                                                                          good, and, as a consequence, award SGA the sum of
     to pay the costs of dispatch to the Georgian
                                                                           ECU 360 000 by way of compensation,
     authorities,
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     proceed to repay to the applicant the sum of US$
     21 967,19 together with interest, calculated at the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     current statutory rate in Belgium of 8 % per annum,
      since 30 July 1996 ,                                             SGA operates as an intermediary in the distribution of all
                                                                       makes of automobiles, undertaking parallel imports solely
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              as agent for the final consumer, in accordance with


title: Case C-255/07: Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/21

         Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-255/07)
   (2007/C 183/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/18/EC into national law expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-48/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 3 February 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 3 February 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-48/17)
   (2017/C 112/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Should the requested Member State, having regard to the objective, the content and the scope of the Dublin Regulation (1) and the Procedures Directive, (2) respond within two weeks to a re-examination request as laid in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation? (3)

               (2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the time limit of a maximum of one month as provided for in Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 343/2003 (4) (now Article 25(1) of the Dublin Regulation) apply, having regard to the last sentence of Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation?

               (3)

               If the answer to the first and second questions is in the negative, does the requested Member State, due to the use of the word ‘beijvert’ [English: ‘shall endeavour’] in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, have a reasonable period of time within which to respond to the re-examination request?

               (4)

               If there is indeed a reasonable period of time within which the requested Member State should respond to the re-examination request under Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, can there, after the passage of seven and a half weeks, as in the present case, still be talk of a reasonable period of time? If the answer to that question is in the negative, what qualifies as a reasonable period of time?

               (5)

               What should be the consequence be of the requested Member State not responding within two weeks, or a reasonable period of time, to a re-examination request? Is the requesting Member State then responsible for the substantive assessment of the foreign national’s asylum application or is that the responsibility of the requested Member State?

               (6)

               If one should proceed on the assumption that the requested Member State becomes responsible for the substantive examination of the asylum application due to the lack of a timely response to the re-examination request as referred to in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, within what period of time should the requesting Member State, the defendant in the present case, notify the foreign national of that?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

      (2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 26 December 1996 by Paul Hodson against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-218/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/35
Instance on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert-Goossens,                  unlawful . She also complains that there was no specific
resident in Blanden ( Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert            examination of her experience and alleges a manifest error
Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in               of assessment .
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de
Nassau .                                                              In the further alternative, she challenges the decision to
                                                                      grade her in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when her grading
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          should have been at least in A 6/3 , alleging absence of a
                                                                      statement of reasons, breach of the second sentence of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Articles 25 and 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
principally,                                                          Regulations and of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the
                                                                      Commission 's Decision of 1 September 1983 , breach of
— annul or declare unlawful the Commission 's decision                the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
     not to recruit the applicant to post No 71/T/TFRH/93 ,           manifest error of assessment, and complaining of the
                                                                      unfair effect on her carreer.
— annul      the   Commission 's    decision   to   recruit the
     applicant to post 50T7XVI/93 ,
in the alternative,
                                                                      Action brought on 26 December 1996 by Paul Hodson
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                           against the Commission of the European Communities
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she                                      ( Case T-218/96 )
     should have been graded in grade A 5/3 ,
                                                                                97/C 54/58 )
in the further alternative,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                        An action against the Commission of the European
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she               Communities was brought before the Court of First
     should at least have been graded in grade A 6/3 ,                Instance of the European Communities on 26 December
                                                                      1996 by Paul Flodson, residing at Brussels, represented by
at all events,                                                        Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                      21 rue de Nassau .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the appointing authority's decision on
The applicant, a member of the Commission's temporary                      12 December 1995 classifying the applicant in grade 7,
staff in grade A 7/3 , had, moreover, worked as a member
of the temporary staff in grade B in DG XVI since 1989 .              — annul the appointing authority's decision of
According to her staff report, the tasks entrusted to her                  26 September 1996 rejecting the applicant's
would normally have been performed by an official in                       administrative complaint No R/416/96 of 3 April
grade A. In 1993 the Commission published several                          1996 against that decision,
recruitment notices for category A, relating inter alia to
posts 71/T/TFRH/93 with the 'Human Resources,                         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Education, Training and Youth' Task Force and 50T/XVI/
93 in DG XVI. The applicant's name was on the list of
suitable candidates for both those posts . The applicant has          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
already lodged a complaint against the Commission's
decision not to recruit her to post 71 /T and its decision to         The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade A 7/
grade her in grade 7 for post 50/T.                                   3 , challenges in particular the classification decision of the
                                                                      appointing authority of 12 December 1995 and requests a
                                                                      more favourable classification under Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
In the present application the applicant further claims that          Staff Regulations so that the appointing authority may
the failure to recruit her to post 71 /T was unlawful and             take into account his professional experience and
that there was an infringement of the rules relating to               qualifications . He claims that the grounds on which it is
withdrawal of administrative acts giving rise to rights.              based are not stated since the Commission did not
Moreover, the administration did not carry out a specific             respond to his specific and exact arguments with regard to
examination of the applicant's experience .                           the exceptional nature of his qualifications in comparison
                                                                      with the post for which he was engaged. Rather, the
In the alternative, the applicant maintains that her grading          Commission merely relied, in this regard, on altogether
in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when it should have been in                general arguments. It did not state why, in this case, the
A 5/3 pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2 of the            qualifications claimed by the applicant could not be
Commission's Decision of 1 September 1983 , was                       considered to be exceptional . The two contested decisions
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
adversely affect the applicant, the grounds on which they           The applicant further pleads that there has been a failure
are based are not stated and, consequently, they infringe           to take into account his entitlement to a pension .
the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25           Although he applied for the transfer of the pension
of the Staff Regulations . Moreover, the administration             entitlement acquired by him in Germany, he received, by
committed a manifest error of assessment in considering             letter of 1 April 1996, a breakdown showing only the
that the applicant's qualifications were not exceptional for        reimbursement of his personal pension contributions . No
the purpose of applying Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff                transfer of his pension entitlement has been effected and
Regulations.                                                        he now enjoys only an extremely modest pension
                                                                    entitlement within the German system, whilst being
                                                                    deprived of any entitlement under the pension system of
                                                                    the Community civil service .
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by 'Y' against the
                    European Parliament
                      ( Case T-219/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/59 )                             Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki
                                                                    Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE v. Council of the European
               (Language of the case: French)                          Union and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-220/96 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ( 97/C 54/60 )
Communities on 27 December 1996 by 'Y', residing in
Brussels, represented by Gerard Collin, of the Brussels Bar,                        (Language of the case: Greek)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 10 December
                                                                    1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE, a
— order the European Parliament to reimburse to the                 company governed by Greek law having its seat in Athens,
    applicant the sums improperly withheld from his                 represented by Mikhail Stathopoulos and Ioannis
    salary between 1 November 1993 and 19 January                   Anagnostou , of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
     1996, together with default interest from the dates            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May.
    when they respectively became due and payable,
— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in              The applicant claims that the Court should :
    the provisional sum of Bfrs 3 000 000, subject to
    increase during the course of the proceedings,                  1 . delcare the application admissible,
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                   2 . order the defendants, for the reason set out in the
                                                                         application, to pay it US $ 75 451 500, or the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      equivalent in ecus on the date of payment according to
                                                                         the highest official rate of US $ to ecu, or, in the
On 6 October 1993 the appointing authority decided to                    alternative ECU 60 478 770 at the current official rate
suspend the applicant from his duties and to withhold half               of US $ to ecu, with interest at 8 % , as is usual in
of his basic salary, pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff                 international contracts, from the date on which the
Regulations. On 6 June 1994, the applicant was convicted                 application was lodged to the date of full settlement,
of an offence by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Bruxelles                 against the transfer to them of the applicant's claim
(Brussels Criminal Court ).                                              against the Central Bank of Iraq in that amount,
Under the third and fifth paragraphs of Article 88 of the
Staff Regulations, the applicant's situation should have            3 . order the defendants to pay the costs and fees of the
been definitively resolved within four months from the                   applicant's lawyers .
date when the verdict reached by the criminal court
hearing the case became final . Since his conviction became         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
final on 21 June 1994, the applicant's situation should
have been definitively resolved by no later than 21 October         The applicant company manufactures and trades in
1994 . The time limit of four months was clearly not                weapons and munitions . Under a contract of 12 January
complied with, since the applicant became aware on                  1987 it sold to Iraq munitions, which it supplied over the
5 February 1996 of the disciplinary decision removing him           period 25 October 1987 to 30 May 1989 , for a price
from his post which the appointing authority had taken              which was to be paid by the Central Bank of Iraq by way
on 19 January 1996 . The applicant is applying, pursuant            of irrevocable guaranteed letter of credit. The Central
to the fourth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                  Bank of Iraq refused, however, to pay, relying on
Regulations, for reimbursement of the sums withheld from            Resolution No 660 of 6 August 1990 of the United
his remuneration; those sums were improperly withheld               Nations Security Council, on the basis of which Council
between 1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 .                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90 was adopted, prohibiting


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-342/03: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Common commercial policy — Canned tuna originating in Thailand and the Philippines — Mediation within the WTO — Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 — Tariff quota)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-342/03: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Canned tuna originating in Thailand and the Philippines - Mediation within the WTO - Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 - Tariff quota)
   (2005/C 115/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-342/03, application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 4 August 2003, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) v Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano) supported by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and R. Vidal Puig) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs, except those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which must bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.


title: Case C-387/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Dresden by order of 7 September 2004 in the insolvency proceedings against Volker Donath

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Dresden by order of 7 September 2004 in the insolvency proceedings against Volker Donath
   (Case C-387/04)
   (2004/C 262/48)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Dresden (Germany) of 7 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the insolvency proceedings against Volker Donath on the following question:
   Does the court of a Member State before which an application for the initiation of insolvency proceedings relating to a debtor's assets has been brought continue to have jurisdiction to decide whether to open insolvency proceedings even where, after lodging the application but before initiation of the proceedings, the debtor transfers the centre of his main interests to the territory of another Member State, or is jurisdiction transferred to the court of that other Member State?


title: Case T-340/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Flatworld Solutions/EUIPO — Outsource2India (Outsource 2 India)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/47

         Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Flatworld Solutions/EUIPO — Outsource2India (Outsource 2 India)
   (Case T-340/16)
   (2016/C 305/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Flatworld Solutions Pvt. Ltd (Bangalore, India) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes, J. Schumacher, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Outsource2India Ltd (Friedrichshafen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Outsource 2 India’ — EU trade mark No 6 035 547

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 in Case R 611/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 3 February 2015;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred by the Applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-416/02: Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
8.2.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/5
The determination of the time when the fixing (finding) should          The applicant claims that the Court should:
have taken place makes it possible to calculate the period
within which the own resources in question should have been
credited to the Commission’s account, in accordance with                —     Declare that
Article 10 of Regulation No 1552/89. Failure to comply within
that period triggers the obligation to pay default interest
pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, an obli-                     (a)   by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
gation which, according to the case-law of the Court, arises                        with Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/
without its being necessary to examine the reasons for the                          442/EEC ( 1), amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2),
failure to comply within that period.                                               inasmuch as it failed to take the necessary measures
                                                                                to ensure that waste from the pig farm located in ‘El
                                                                                Pago de la Media Legua’ is recovered or disposed of
( 1) OJ 1994 L 293, p. 9.
                                                                                without endangering human health and without
( 2) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                                harming the environment and insofar as the farm
                                                                                was not covered by the authorisation required under
                                                                                the directive and by failing to carry out the requisite
                                                                                regular checks in respect of such establishments;
                                                                              (b) by failing to carry out an impact assessment prior to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                                the construction or modification of the project,
gericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case
                                                                                contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(2)
of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                                of Council Directive 85/337/EEC ( 3), either in its
      represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten
                                                                                original wording or as amended by Directive 97/11/
                                                                                EC (4);
                          (Case C-400/02)
                           (2003/C 31/08)                                     (c)   by failing to carry out the requisite hydrological
                                                                                studies in the area affected by pollution, in accord-
                                                                                ance with Articles 3(b), 5(1) and 7 of Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive 80/68/EEC (5);
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                     (d) by not subjecting urban waste-water from the
the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,                      agglomeration of Vera to treatment which is more
represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten (Local Office                        stringent than that described in Article 4, as required
for Defence Expenditure) on the following question:                                 under Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/
                                                                                EEC ( 6);
Is Article 39 EC infringed by the fact that for the purposes of
calculating the basis of assessment of interim assistance in a
                                                                              (e)   by failing to declare the Rambla de Mojácar a
case arising under Paragraph 4(1)(b) of the collective agreement
                                                                                vulnerable area, contrary to Article 3(1), (2) and (4)
on social security account must be taken of the notional
                                                                                of Directive 91/676/EEC (7);
German tax on emoluments (second sentence of Para-
graph 4(3)(b) of that collective agreement) if the former
employee lives and is subject to tax abroad?
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned directives; and
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Spain
                          (Case C-416/02)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 31/09)
                                                                        —     Infringements (a) to (c) relate to the construction and
                                                                              running of an intensive pig farm situated in ‘El pago de la
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     Media Legua’, in the municipal district of Vera, in the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                    province of Almeria. The Spanish authorities admit that
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                        that pig farm is illegal and is not covered by a municipal
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                    licence, so that it must be deemed not to have the
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           requisite authorisation required by Article 9 of Directive
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
       75/442/EEC. Furthermore, those authorities have never                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
       denied that strong odours emanating from that farm                    Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) by order
       reach nearby housing. Also, the incorrect arrangements                of that court dated 8 November 2002, in the case of
       for handling the slurry, which is emptied into a pit which            1) BUPA Hospitals Ltd and 2) Goldsborough Develop-
       is too small for the size of the exploitation, and for                ments Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and
       disposing of carcasses results in the improper dumping                                              Excise
       of slurry and remains of animals in the surrounding area.
       Finally, the Spanish authorities have not submitted any
       description of the inspections carried out to check                                           (Case C-419/02)
       whether Directive 75/442/EEC is being complied with.
       Although the pig farm in question is substantial, counting                                     (2003/C 31/10)
       with 2 779 pigs and more than 600 suckling pigs, and is
       located 600 metres from the river Antas, which the
       Spanish authorities have declared an area of Community
       interest, it has not been the subject of an impact
       assessment as required by Directive 85/337/EEC.                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by an order of the High Court
                                                                             of Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) dated
—      The waste-water of the agglomeration of Vera, with a                  8 November 2002, which was received at the Court Registry
       population of more than 10 000, which is deposited in                 on 20 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       an area which ought to have been designated as sensitive,             1) BUPA Hospitals Ltd and 2) Goldsborough Developments
       should be treated more stringently than merely by means               Ltd and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
       of secondary treatment. Clear evidence of the insufficient            following questions:
       tratement of Vera’s waste-water is the fact that the
       quantity of the chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the
       sample analysed at the request of the Commission is of
       353 mgO 2/l, which is three times greater than the
       maximum authorised for effluent from a waste treatment                Qu est ion 1
       station.
                                                                             Having regard to the relevant circumstances, the relevant
—      By decree of 2 March 1999, the Spanish authorities                    transactions and the position of the vendor companies how is
       declared the sensitive areas of the Autonomous Com-                   the expression ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of
       munity of Andalucia, including, in respect of Almeria, the            Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC on VAT ( 1) (the
       coastal lagoons of the Aguas and Antas rivers, whose                  Directive) to be interpreted?
       waters are eutrophic, with a high concentration of
       nitrates. Consequently, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Direc-
       tive 91/676/EEC, the Spanish authorities should have
       designated the area which drains into those waters as a
       vulnerable area.                                                      Qu est ion 2
( 1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975          Having regard to the relevant circumstances, relevant trans-
     L 194, p. 39).                                                          actions, and the position of the vendor companies how is the
( 2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending                  expression ‘supply of goods’ in Article 5(1) of the Directive to
     Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).                    be interpreted?
( 3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
     of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).
( 4) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
     85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
     private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).               Qu est ion 3
( 5) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
                                                                             a)   Is there a principle of abuse of rights and/or abuse of the
     dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
( 6) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban                 law which (independently of the interpretation given to
     waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).                                the Directive) is capable of precluding the right to deduct
( 7) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning                  input tax?
     the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
     agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1).
                                                                             b)   If so, in what circumstances would it apply?
                                                                             c)   Would it apply in circumstances such as those found by
                                                                                the Tribunal?


title: Case T-263/08: Action brought on 7 July 2008 — Becker Flugfunkwerk v OHIM — Harman Becker Automotive Systems (BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/55

         Action brought on 7 July 2008 — Becker Flugfunkwerk v OHIM — Harman Becker Automotive Systems (BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS)
   (Case T-263/08)
   (2008/C 223/98)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Becker Flugfunkwerk GmbH (Rheinmünster, Germany) (represented by: O. Griebenow, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH (Karlsbad, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 April 2008 in case R 398/2007-1; and

               —

               Refuse opposition No B 484 503 relating to Community trade mark application No 1 829 563.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS’ for goods in class 9, application No 1 829 563

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

      Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 258 929 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; German trade mark registration No 1 039 843 of the figurative mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; German trade mark registration No 1 016 927 of the figurative mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 37; Finnish trade mark registration No 116 880 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; Greek trade mark registration No 82339 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; International trade mark registration No 473 178 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition with respect to all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.