title: Case C-69/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2017 — Gamesa Wind România S.R.L. v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 8 February 2017 — Gamesa Wind România S.R.L. v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
   (Case C-69/17)
   (2017/C 144/35)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gamesa Wind România S.R.L.

      Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Council VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (in particular, Articles 213, 214 and 273) preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation or a tax practice under which a taxpayer does not have the right to deduct VAT claimed in several returns after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, on the basis that the VAT in question relates to purchases made during a period in which the taxpayer’s VAT identification number was inoperative?

               2.

               Does Council VAT Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (in particular, Articles 213, 214 and 273) preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, national legislation or a tax practice under which a taxpayer does not have the right to deduct VAT claimed in several returns after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, on the basis that, although the VAT in question relates to invoices issued after the reactivation of the taxpayer’s VAT identification number, it concerns purchases made during a period in which the VAT identification number was inoperative?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-484/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 November 2008 — Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 November 2008 — Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)
   (Case C-484/08)
   (2009/C 19/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid

      Defendant: Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be construed as meaning that a Member State may provide in its legislation, for the benefit of consumers, that the assessment as to whether contractual terms are unfair is to be carried out also in respect of terms which, pursuant to Article 4(2) of that Directive, fall outside the scope of such an assessment?

               2.

               Consequently, does Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, preclude a Member State from providing in its legislation, for the benefit of consumers, that the assessment as to whether contractual terms are unfair is to be carried out also in respect of terms which relate to ‘the definition of the main subject matter of the contract’ or to ‘the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplies in exchange’, even where those terms are in plain, intelligible language?

               3.

               Is an interpretation of Articles 8 and 4(2) of Directive 91/13 under which it is possible for a Member State to provide for assessment by the courts as to whether contractual terms are unfair, which are in plain, intelligible language and which define the main subject-matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, compatible with Articles 2, 3(1)(g) and 4(1) EC?

      (1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.


title: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 22 June 2004 in Case C-42/01: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Community control of concentrations between undertakings — Article 21(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Protection by Member States of their legitimate interests — Competence of the Commission)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Court)
   of 22 June 2004
   in Case C-42/01: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Community control of concentrations between undertakings - Article 21(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Protection by Member States of their legitimate interests - Competence of the Commission)
   (2004/C 201/01)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-42/01: Portuguese Republic, (Agents: L.I. Fernandes and L. Duarte, assisted by M. Marques Mendes) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and M. França) — application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 3543 final-PT of 22 November 2000 in relation to a proceeding under Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (Case No COMP/M.2054 – Secil/Holderbank/Cimpor) — the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 7.4.2001.


title: Case C-505/08: Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/19

         Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-505/08)
   (2009/C 19/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing the Directive expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22


title: Case C-249/08: Action brought on 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/30

         Action brought on 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-249/08)
   (2008/C 209/45)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and C. Cattabriga, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to provide appropriate measures for the control, inspection and surveillance of fishing activities within its territory and within maritime waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, in particular with regard to compliance with the provisions governing the retention on board and use of drift-nets, and

                           —

                           by failing to comply sufficiently with its obligation to ensure that appropriate measures are taken against those responsible for infringements of the Community legislation on the retention on board and use of drift nets, in particular by imposing dissuasive penalties on those persons,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Article 2(1) and Article 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2) of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Since it was introduced in 1992, the prohibition on retaining on board and using drift-nets of a length greater than 2.5 Km and, since 2001, drift-nets of any length, has been systematically infringed on a massive scale by the Italian fishing fleet.

               2.

               According to the Commission, the extent and seriousness of the situation are directly attributable to the inefficiencies in the Italian system for monitoring compliance with that prohibition and the inadequacy of the penalties imposed under Italian legislation for infringement of that prohibition.

               3.

               In that connection, the Commission observes that the supervision of the use of drift-nets is conducted by numerous organisations which are competing with each other and in such a way that other tasks entrusted to them take precedence over that supervision, which is, moreover, not adequately coordinated. The lack of human resources, time and the necessary means prevents effective control being carried out.

               4.

               Adequate strategic programming and planning for the control of the use of drift-nets is also lacking. The Commission observes that the controls should be carefully programmed on the basis of specific risk factors and a comprehensive, integrated and rational strategy. There should also be a greater focus on certain periods of the year and on specific regions and control posts. At present, however, no such action is being taken by the Italian authorities.

               5.

               The authorities responsible for surveillance of the use of drift-nets do not have access to information on the location of fishing vessels gathered by the satellite vessel monitoring system (VMS) provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 2847/93. It is apparent from an investigation carried out by the Commission that a significant number of fishing vessels are still not equipped with the satellite-tracking devices necessary for the proper functioning of the VMS. As regards the collection of data, the computerisation of logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes required under Regulation No 2847/93 and, a fortiori, the cross-analysis of those data with the information collected by the VMS, are far from being fully implemented.

               6.

               If the surveillance of the use of drift-nets carried out by the Italian authorities appears to be wholly unsatisfactory, then no more efficient is their prevention of infringements of Community provisions on the retention and use of such nets.

               7.

               In that connection, the Commission observes, first of all, that, contrary to Article 9a of Regulation No 3094/86 (3) and the measures which subsequently repeated and expanded the content of that provision, the Italian legislation in force governing penalties prohibits, essentially, only the use or attempted use of drift-nets but not their simple retention on board.

               8.

               Secondly, when it is found that an infringement of the prohibition on the use of drift-nets has actually occurred, it is not duly reported by the local surveillance authorities to the competent authorities, principally due to existing social pressures, and it is not in any event effectively pursued and penalised. The number and range of penalties imposed is, in fact, derisory.

               9.

               The Commission therefore considers that it has been amply demonstrated that the system of controls and penalties put in place in Italy to ensure compliance with the Community provisions on drift-nets is wholly inadequate for the purposes of securing compliance with the obligations imposed on the Member States by Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2241/87 and Article 2(1) and Article 31(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93.

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 7 October 1986 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1986 L 288, p. 1).


               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/1

         (2007/C 199/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

      OJ C 140, 23.6.2007

      OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

      OJ C 96, 28.4.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-486/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 12 November 2008 — Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhauser Tirols v Land Tirol

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 12 November 2008 — Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhauser Tirols v Land Tirol
   (Case C-486/08)
   (2009/C 44/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhauser Tirols

      Defendant: Land Tirol
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work of 6 June 1997 which was implemented by the Directive on part-time work (Council Directive 97/81/EC (1) of 15 December 1997, OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), that workers employed under a private law contract by a local or regional authority or a public undertaking and who work less than 12 hours per week (30 % of the normal working time), be treated less favourably than comparable full-time workers with regard to remuneration, classification in salary group, recognition of previous periods of service, entitlement to leave, additional payments and overtime supplements etc.?

               2.

               Is the pro-rata-temporis principle, as set out in Clause 4(2) of the Framework Agreement, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law such as Paragraph 55(5) of the L-VBG, under which in the event of a change in the working hours of an employee, the amount of leave not yet taken is adjusted proportionally to the new working hours, with the result that the worker who reduces his working hours from full-time to part-time, has his entitlement to leave accumulated while working full-time reduced or, as a part-time worker, he can only take that leave with a reduced level of payment for leave?

               3.

               Is a provision of national law, such as Paragraph 1(2)(m) of the L-VBG, according to which workers employed for a period not exceeding 6 months or on a casual basis are treated less favourably with regard to remuneration, classification in salary group, recognition of previous periods of service, entitlement to leave, additional payments and overtime supplements etc., contrary to Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement of the European Social Partners as implemented by Directive on fixed-term work 1999/70/EC (2) of 28 June 1999 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43)?

               4.

               Is there indirect discrimination on grounds of sex within the meaning of Article 14(1)(c) of the Equal Treatment Directive of 5 July 2006 (Directive 2006/54/EC (3), OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23), if, in the case of employees who take the full two years' parental leave permissible by law, the entitlement to annual leave from the year preceding the birth expires before the end of the parental leave, and the majority of the workers affected are women (97 %)?

      (1)  OJ L 14, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ L 175, p. 43.

      (3)  OJ L 204, p. 23.


title: Case T-73/17: Action brought on 3 February 2017 — RS v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/41

         Action brought on 3 February 2017 — RS v Commission
   (Case T-73/17)
   (2017/C 112/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RS (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that

               —

               The decision of the selection board of the competition of 11 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s application for internal competition COM/02/AST/16 is annulled;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
   The applicant thus puts forward a plea of illegality of the notice of the contested internal competition insofar as it lays down a condition for admission to the competition which has the effect of refusing access to it to those temporary agents who have not been in an administrative position of active employment, on leave for military service, on parental or family leave or on secondment during the 12 months preceding the closing date for filing applications.


title: Case C-510/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 25 October 2010 — DR and TV2 Danmark A/S v NCB

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 25 October 2010 — DR and TV2 Danmark A/S v NCB
   (Case C-510/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/63
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicants

               :

                           1.

                           DR

                           2.

                           TV2 Danmark A/S

               Defendant

               :

               NCB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the terms ‘by means of their own facilities’ in Article 5(2)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) and ‘on behalf of and under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’ in recital 41 in the preamble to that directive be interpreted with reference to national law or to Community law?

               2.

               Should it be assumed that the wording of Article 5(2)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC, as, for example, in the Danish, English and French versions of that provision, is to mean ‘on behalf of and under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’ or, as, for example, in the German version, is to mean ‘on behalf of or under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’?

               3.

               On the assumption that the terms cited in Question 1 are to be interpreted with reference to Community law, the following question is asked: What criteria should national courts apply to a specific assessment as to whether a recording made by a third party (the ‘Producer’) for use in a broadcasting organisation’s transmissions was made ‘by means of their own facilities’, and ‘on behalf of [and/or] under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’, such that the recording is covered by the exception laid down in Article 5(2)(d)?
               In connection with the answer to Question 3, answers are sought in particular to the following questions:

                           (a)

                           Should the concept of ‘own facilities’ in Article 5(2)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC be understood to mean that a recording made by the Producer for use in a broadcasting organisation’s transmissions is covered by the exception laid down in Article 5(2)(d) only if the broadcasting organisation is liable towards third parties for the Producer’s acts and omissions in relation to the recording, as if the broadcasting organisation had itself carried out those acts and omissions?

                           (b)

                           Is the condition that the recording must be made ‘on behalf of [and/or] under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’ satisfied where a broadcasting organisation has commissioned the Producer to make the recording in order that that broadcasting organisation can transmit the recording in question, and on the assumption that the broadcasting organisation concerned has the right to transmit the recording in question?
                           Clarification is sought as to whether the following situations may or must be taken into consideration for the purpose of answering Question 3(b), and if so, what weight should be given to them:

                                       (i)

                                       Whether it is the broadcasting organisation or the Producer which has the final and conclusive artistic/editorial decision on the content of the commissioned programme under agreements between those parties.

                                       (ii)

                                       Whether the broadcasting organisation is liable towards third parties in respect of the Producer’s obligations in relation to the recording, as if the broadcasting organisation itself had carried out those acts and omissions.

                                       (iii)

                                       Whether the Producer is contractually obliged by the agreement with the broadcasting organisation to deliver the programme in question to the broadcasting organisation for a specified price and has to meet, out of this price, all expenses that may be associated with the recording.

                                       (iv)

                                       Whether it is the broadcasting organisation or the Producer which assumes liability for the recording in question vis-à-vis third parties.

                           (c)

                           Is the condition that the recording must be made ‘on behalf of [and/or] under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’ satisfied in the case where a broadcasting organisation has commissioned the Producer to make the recording in order for the broadcasting organisation to be able to transmit the recording in question, and on the assumption that the broadcasting organisation in question has the right to transmit the recording, where the Producer, in the agreement with the broadcasting organisation relating to the recording, has assumed the financial and legal responsibility for (i) meeting all the expenses associated with the recording in return for payment of an amount fixed in advance; (ii) the purchase of rights; and (iii) unforeseen circumstances, including any delay in the recording and breach of contract, but without the broadcasting organisation being liable towards third parties in respect of the Producer’s obligations in relation to the recording as if the broadcasting organisation had itself carried out those acts and omissions?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2002 in Case C-183/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 5 de Oviedo): María Victoria González Sánchez v Medicina Asturiana SA (Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Product liability — Relationship with other systems of liability)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 180/5
2.   Article 10 of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     182, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a provision of
     national law such as the second paragraph of Article 4 of
     Decree No 92-377 must be understood as requiring a mark or                                         (Fifth Chamber)
     label to be applied, that provision is not exempted from the
     notification requirement under Article 8 of Directive 83/189.
                                                                                of 25 April 2002
3.   In the event that a national provision such as the second
     paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92-377 were to be                   in Case C-183/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     interpreted as requiring a mark or label to be applied, an              the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 5 de
     individual may invoke the failure to make notification of that          Oviedo): Marı́a Victoria González Sánchez v Medicina
     national provision in accordance with Article 8 of Directive                                       Asturiana SA (1)
     83/189. It is then for the national court to refuse to apply that
     provision, the question of the conclusions to be drawn from the
     inapplicability of that national provision as regards the severity
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Product
     of the sanction under the applicable national law, such as
                                                                                liability — Relationship with other systems of liability)
     nullity or unenforceability of the contract, being a question
     governed by national law. That conclusion is, however, subject
     to the condition that the applicable rules of national law are
     not less favourable than those governing similar domestic                                          (2002/C 180/08)
     actions and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible
     in practice the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
4.   If Directive 83/189 does not apply to the provisions of Decree
     No 92-377, the Member State concerned ought to have                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     informed the Commission of the proposed national provisions                                 in the European Court Reports)
     in accordance with Article 3(2) of Council Directive 75/442/
     EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
     Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.
                                                                             In Case C-183/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
5.   Article 3(2) of Directive 75/442, properly construed, does not          EC by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 5 de
     give individuals any right which they may enforce before                Oviedo (Spain), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     national courts in order to obtain the annulment or suspension          pending before that court between Marı́a Victoria González
     of national rules falling within the scope of that provision on         Sánchez and Medicina Asturiana SA — on the interpretation
     the ground that the rules were adopted without having been              of Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
     previously communicated to the Commission.                              1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                             liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — the
6.   If the national court were to interpret a provision such as the         Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
     second paragraph of Article 4 of Decree No 92-377 as not                President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and C. W. A. Timmer-
     requiring a mark or label to be applied but as imposing only a          mans, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
     general obligation to identify the packaging collected for              Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April
     disposal by an approved undertaking, that provision may be              2002, in which it ruled:
     regarded as a selling arrangement. It is for the national court
     to verify whether the relevant conditions under the case-law of
     the Court for exempting such an obligation from the scope of            Article 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on
     application of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
     amendment, Article 28 EC) are met, namely that the provision            provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
     at issue applies to all relevant traders operating within the           products must be interpreted as meaning that the rights conferred
     national territory and that it affects in the same manner, in law       under the legislation of a Member State on the victims of damage
     and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those            caused by a defective product under a general system of liability
     from other Member States.                                               having the same basis as that put in place by the Directive may be
                                                                             limited or restricted as a result of the Directive’s transposition into
                                                                             the domestic law of that State.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-804/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Tropical — Earlier national word mark TROPICAL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Extent of the applicant’s rights under national law — Coexistence of the marks — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)
   (Case T-804/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Tropical - Earlier national word mark TROPICAL - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the applicant’s rights under national law - Coexistence of the marks - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 326/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aviário Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2014 (Case R 1948/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Aviário Tropical and Mr Ogrodnik.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2014 (Case R 1948/2013-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Tadeusz Ogrodnik.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 1999 in Case T-171/97: Swedish Match Philippines Inc. v Council of the European Union (Protection against dumping - Imposition of duty on imports of pocket lighters from the Philippines - Causal connection between the extremely limited quantity of exports and the existence of injury to Community industry)

text:
4.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 6 October 1999                                                         of 20 October 1999
                                                                          in Case T-171/97: Swedish Match Philippines Inc. v
in Case T-123/97: Salomon SA v Commission of the                                         Council of the European Union (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Protection against dumping — Imposition of duty on
(Decision authorising State aid for restructuring — Starting              imports of pocket lighters from the Philippines — Causal
point for the time-limit for bringing an action against a                 connection between the extremely limited quantity of exports
third party — Requirements for the compatibility of the aid)                    and the existence of injury to Community industry)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/59)
                          (1999/C 352/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-171/97 Swedish Match Philippines Inc., established
                                                                          in Manila, the Philippines, represented by Francisco Miguel
In Case T-123/97: Salomon SA, established at Pringy (France),             Rodero López, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
represented by Loraine Donnedieu de Vabres and Jean-Pierre                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue des
Jouyet, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                  Bains v Council of the European Union (Agents: Ramon
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue,                   Torrent, Antonio Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                   Berrisch) supported by Commission of the European Com-
Gérard Rozet and Ami Barav), supported by the Republic of                 munities (Agents: Viktor Kreuschitz and Nicholas Khan) —
Austria (Agent: Christine Stix-Hackl) and by HTM Sport-                   application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
und Freizeitgeräte AG, established at Schwechat (Austria),                No 423/97 of 3 March 1997 amending Regulation (EEC)
represented by Wolfgang Knapp, of the Brussels and Frankfurt              No 3433/91 in respect of imports originating in Thailand
Bars, and Till Müller-Ibold, of the Frankfurt Bar, with an                and imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt               gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in
and Medernach, 8 to 10 Rue Mathias Hardt — application for                Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico (OJ 1997 L 65, p. 1), as
the annulment of Commission Decision 97/81/EC of 30 July                  amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1508/97
1996 concerning aid granted by the Austrian Government to                 of 28 July 1997 (OJ 1997 L 204, p. 7) — the Court (First
the undertaking Head Tyrolia Mares in the form of injections              Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
of capital (OJ 1997 L 25, p. 26) — the Court of First Instance            President, C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                       ras, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
A. Potocki, President, and K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi            has given a judgment on 20 October 1999, in which it:
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 6 October 1999, in
which it:                                                                 1. Dismisses the application;
1. Dismisses the application;                                             2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and four fifths of the
                                                                               costs incurred by the Council;
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission
     and by the intervener Head Tyrolia Mares;                            3. Orders the Council to bear one fifth of its own costs;
3. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.                  4. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.


title: Case C-537/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Groupe Léa Nature SA, European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Figurative mark including the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU and national word and figurative marks including the word element ‘SO…?’ — Refusal of registration)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 — Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Groupe Léa Nature SA, European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-537/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Figurative mark including the word elements ‘SO’BiO ētic’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the EU and national word and figurative marks including the word element ‘SO…?’ - Refusal of registration))
   (2017/C 006/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: D. Selden, Advocate, and T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Groupe Léa Nature SA (represented by: S. Arnaud, avocat), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and P. Geroulakos, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 September 2014, Groupe Léa Nature v OHIM — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO’BiO ētic) (T-341/13, not published, EU:T:2014:802);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-111/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 2007 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL FIT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark VITAL FIT — Earlier national word mark VITAFIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to a fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/14

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 2007 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL FIT)
   (Case T-111/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark VITAL FIT - Earlier national word mark VITAFIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2008/C 8/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 in Case R 3/2005-2 relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case C-182/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 22 April 2015 — Aleksei Petruhhin

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 22 April 2015 — Aleksei Petruhhin
   (Case C-182/15)
   (2015/C 205/31)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aleksei Petruhhin

      Other party to the proceedings: Latvijas Republikas Ģenerālprokuratūra

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of extradition of a citizen of any Member State of the European Union to a non-Member State under an extradition agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, the same level of protection must be guaranteed as is guaranteed to a citizen of the Member State in question?

               2.

               In those circumstances, must the court of the Member State to which the request for extradition has been made apply the conditions for extradition of the EU State of which the person concerned is a citizen or of that in which he has his habitual residence?

               3.

               In cases in which extradition must be carried out without taking into consideration the specific level of protection established for the citizens of the State to which the request for extradition has been made, must the Member State to which the request for extradition has been made verify compliance with the safeguards established in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that is, that no one may be extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? May such verification be limited to checking that the State requesting extradition is a party to the Convention against Torture or is it necessary to check the factual situation by taking into consideration the evaluation of that State carried out by the bodies of the Council of Europe?


title: Case T-315/13: Action brought on 30 April 2013 — Kompas MTS v Parliament and Others

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/12

         Action brought on 30 April 2013 — Kompas MTS v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-315/13)
   2013/C 233/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kompas mejni turistični servis d.d. (Kompas MTS d.d.) (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Tischler, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the European Union to pay the sum of EUR 846 000 plus interest at the rate of 8 % or declare that a right to compensation for damage against the European Union exists;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the necessary costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks compensation for damage in essence on the basis of the adoption of Article 5(6)(e) of Directive 2001/37/EC (1). It takes the view that it was only due to the adoption of that provision that it was possible for the Austrian legislature to restrict the importation of tobacco products on which the text was not in German. The applicant submits that that quantitative restriction on imports was caused by the adoption of Directive 2001/37, by which the defendants infringed the principle of proportionality, the principle of non-discrimination, the fundamental right to property and the freedom to conduct a business.

      (1)  Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2001 in case C-380/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amoumt — Delivery costs of bonuses in kind)

text:
1.9.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 245/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the taxable amount for the supply of a bonus in kind constituting
                                                                             consideration for the introduction of a new customer includes, besides
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    the purchase price of that bonus, the costs of delivery, when they are
                                                                             paid by the supplier of the bonus.
                            of 3 July 2001
                                                                             (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
in case C-380/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt
                          Wiedenbrück (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
         amoumt — Delivery costs of bonuses in kind)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2001/C 245/01)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                        of 3 July 2001
                                                                             in Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
In Case C-380/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                             Directive 98/35/EC — Training of seafarers — Failure to
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                                implement within prescribed period)
(Federal Finance Court, Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between
Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück — on the                                                         (2001/C 245/02)
interpretation of article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive
(77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                            (Language of the case: French)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ris (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,                                in the European Court Reports)
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    In Case C-297/00: Commission of the European Communities
3 July 2001, in which it has ruled:                                          (Agent: B. Mongin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
                                                                             initially P. Steinmetz, and subsequently J. Faltz) — application
Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of               for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added             provisions, including any penalties, necessary to comply with
tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that       Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending


title: Case T-405/12: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — FH v Commission (Action for annulment and damages — Decision of the Commission to withdraw from the applicant the documents giving him access to the Commission buildings — Action for annulment — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Harm — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/24

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — FH v Commission
   (Case T-405/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment and damages - Decision of the Commission to withdraw from the applicant the documents giving him access to the Commission buildings - Action for annulment - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Harm - Action manifestly unfounded in law)
   2013/C 189/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FH (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment of the Commission decision of 10 July 2012 withdrawing from the applicant the documents giving him access to the Commission buildings and, secondly, an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               FH shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 October 2001 in Joined Cases C-95/99 to C-98/99 and C-180/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Mervett Khalil (C-95/99), Issa Chaaban (C-96/99), Hassan Osseili (C-97/99) v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Mohamad Nasser (C-98/99) v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart and Meriem Addou (C-180/99) v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Social security — Article 51 of the EEC Treaty (later Article 51 of the EC Treaty and now, after amendment, Article 42 EC) — Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Stateless persons — Refugees)

text:
22.12.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 369/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
                                                                             N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
                       of 11 October 2001                                    mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón
                                                                             (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges;
in Joined Cases C-95/99 to C-98/99 and C-180/99 (refer-                      F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
ences for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialge-                      judgment on 11 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
richt): Mervett Khalil (C-95/99), Issa Chaaban (C-96/99),
Hassan Osseili (C-97/99) v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit,
Mohamad Nasser (C-98/99) v Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart
and Meriem Addou (C-180/99) v Land Nordrhein-Westfa-
                                len (1)                                      1.    Examination of the first question referred has disclosed no factor
                                                                                of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation
(Social security — Article 51 of the EEC Treaty (later Article                     (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
51 of the EC Treaty and now, after amendment, Article 42                           social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
EC) — Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 —                                persons and to members of their families moving within the
                 Stateless persons — Refugees)                                     Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, in so far as it includes in
                          (2001/C 369/01)                                          its personal scope stateless persons or refugees residing in the
                                                                                territory of one of the Member States and members of their
                                                                                families.
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            2.    Workers who are stateless persons or refugees residing in the
                                                                                territory of one of the Member States, and members of their
                                                                                families, cannot rely on the rights conferred by Regulation
In Joined Cases C-95/99 to C-98/99 and C-180/99: reference                         No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No
to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article                       2001/83, where they are in a situation which is confined in all
234 EC) from the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court)                        respects within that one Member State.
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Mervett Khalil (C-95/99), Issa
Chaaban (C-96/99), Hassan Osseili (C-97/99) and Bundesan-
stalt für Arbeit, between Mohamad Nasser (C-98/99) and
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart and between Meriem Addou
(C-180/09) and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — on the validity                    (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999; OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
and interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — the Court, composed


title: Case C-72/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 11 February 2013 — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 11 February 2013 — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-72/13)
   2013/C 141/23
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gmina Wrocław

      Respondent: Minister Finansów

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) preclude the imposition of VAT on the activities of a municipality consisting in the sale or the contribution to commercial companies of property, including immovable property, acquired by operation of law or without consideration, in particular by inheritance or gift?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-408/03: Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
15.11.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 275/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the nature
directive by failing to require in its legislation with sufficient        1.    declare that the Kingdom of Belgium:
legal certainty that an appropriate assessment is to be made in
respect of all projects, including those which are the subject of
an environmental impact assessment. That fact alone suffices                    —     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18
to found the present action.                                                          EC and Directive 90/364/EEC on the right of
                                                                                residence, by making the right of residence of
                                                                                citizens of the Union subject to the condition that
Finland took the view in its response to the letter of formal                         they have sufficient personal resources;
notice that if the Environmental Impact Assessment Law
applies to a project, the explanations made in connection with
the environmental impact assessment procedure may be the                        —     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 90/
appropriate assessment within the meaning of Paragraph 65 of                          364/EEC on the right of residence (1), under Article 4
the Nature Protection Law. According to Finland, overlapping                          of Directive 68/360/EEC on the abolition of restric-
procedures are thus prevented. Finland repeated its view in its                       tions on movement and residence within the Com-
reply to the reasoned opinion.                                                        munity for workers of Member States and their
                                                                                families (2), under Article 4 of Directive 73/148/EEC
                                                                                on the abolition of restrictions on movement and
In so far as Finland refers to difficulties in practice in                            residence within the Community for nationals of
bringing its legislation into line with its Treaty obligations, the                   Member States with regard to establishment and the
Commission recalls the settled case-law of the Court of Justice                       provision of services (3), under Article 2 of Directive
which says that internal difficulties within the State connected                      93/96/EEC on the right of residence for students, (4)
with the conditions in which laws and regulations are drafted                         and under Article 2 of Directive 90/365/EEC on the
cannot release a Member State from its obligations under                              right of residence for employees and self-employed
Community law. Similarly, in accordance with the settled case-                        persons who have ceased their occupational
law of the Court of Justice, when assessing whether a Member                          activity (5), by providing for the possibility to give
State has failed to fulfil its obligations of membership, regard                      automatic notification of an order to leave the
must be had to the situation of the Member State as it is at the                      country to citizens of the Union who have not
expiry of the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion.                                 produced the documents necessary to obtain a
                                                                                residence permit within a prescribed period;
As yet, it has not yet come to the knowledge of the Commission
that the necessary measures for aligning national legislation             2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
with Article 6(3) of the nature directive have been carried out,
or at least they have not been notified to the Commission.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Belgian legislation and administrative practice infringe
                                                                          Community law in that they lay down:
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Com-                           —     the condition of possession of sufficient personal
mission of the European Communities against the                                 resources.
                       Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Article 1 of Directive 90/364/EEC requires that the citizen
                         (Case C-408/03)                                        of the Union proves that he has, for himself and the
                                                                                members of his family, sufficient resources, but does not
                                                                                require that the resources are his. The Directive introduces
                         (2003/C 275/56)                                        in respect of the host Member State a flexible system of
                                                                                guarantees which evolves over time, intended to allow
                                                                                the citizen of the Union to move easily within the
                                                                                territory of the Member States without having to prove
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                            that he has means of subsistence for the entire duration
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      of his stay. However, the system of the Belgian authorities
30 September 2003 by the Commission of the European                             seeks to introduce additional guarantees in order to avoid
Communities, represented by M. Condou Durande and D. Mar-                       ab initio the citizen of the Union becoming a burden on
tin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-                    the social assistance system, which is inherently contrary
bourg.                                                                          to the spirit of Directive 90/364/EEC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/38                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         15.11.2003
—    the possibility of giving notification of an order to leave                ple, the ordering of a specific inspection as to fitness
     the territory to citizens of the Union who have not                        for human consumption or a restriction to certain
     produced the documents necessary for the issue of a                        distribution channels?
     residence permit within the prescribed period.
                                                                          2.    Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
     A Member State may refuse or terminate the right of                        of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
     residence of a citizen of the Union only if the conditions                 ember 1987 require that the product to be exported be
     of this right are not or are no longer fulfilled. By contrast,             of average quality, and does it therefore disqualify from
     the fact that the administrative procedures for the grant                  the grant of an export refund a product of inferior quality,
     of the residence permit evidencing the right have not                      which, however, usually appears under the description of
     been complied with may not lead to a penalty such as                       the object of trade given in the refund application? Is that
     refusal to grant the right of residence or removal from                    also the case where the inferior quality has in no way
     the territory, which would effectively deny the actual                     affected the completion of the commercial transaction?
     right of residence conferred and guaranteed by the Treaty.
     The notification of an order to leave the territory may be
     based not on exclusively administrative grounds, but on              (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
     facts leading to the conclusion that the person concerned
     does not fulfil the conditions set for his right of residence
     by one of the relevant directives.
(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.
(2) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485.
(3) OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14.                                                 Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission
(4) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                                         of the European Communities against Ireland
(5) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28.
                                                                                (Case C-413/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/58)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-                  Justice of the European Communities on 2 October 2003 by
of by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de                         by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
Produits Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                    in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-409/03)                                  The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 275/57)                                  1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                                                                                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or by
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                                failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 July 2003, received at the Court
                                                                                Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
Registry on 1 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                                of this Directive.
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de Produits
Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following questions:                                                      2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
1.   Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
     of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) of                     Pleas in law and main arguments
     27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
     for the application of the system of export refunds on
     agricultural products require that the manufacture and               The period within which the directive had to be transposed
     distribution of the products in question be subject only             expired on 17 October 2002.
     to generally valid legal conditions as they apply to any
     product of that type, and does it consequently disqualify
     from the grant of an export refund a product to which                (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
     special restrictions apply, in particular as regards its
     production, treatment or distribution, such as, for exam-


title: Case C-550/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduction — Adjustment — Theft of goods)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-550/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduction - Adjustment - Theft of goods)
   2012/C 366/26
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 185(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National tax practice under which the VAT deducted as input tax on the acquisition of goods must be adjusted if the goods are stolen — Concept of theft duly proved or confirmed

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 185(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national tax provisions, such as those contained in Articles 79 and 80 of the Law on value added tax (Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost), which require, where a shortfall in the goods subject to value added tax has been established, that an adjustment be made to the deduction of that input tax at the time of acquisition of those goods, where the taxable person was the victim of a theft of those goods and the perpetrator has not been identified.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case C-114/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Pau — France) — Criminal proceedings against Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions — Parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products — Directive 2001/82/EC — Article 65 — National system of prior authorisation — Livestock farmers excluded from simplified marketing authorisation procedure — Obligation to hold a wholesale trading authorisation — Obligation to have an establishment within the Member State of import — Pharmacovigilance obligations)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Pau — France) — Criminal proceedings against Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) and Others
   (Case C-114/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions - Parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products - Directive 2001/82/EC - Article 65 - National system of prior authorisation - Livestock farmers excluded from simplified marketing authorisation procedure - Obligation to hold a wholesale trading authorisation - Obligation to have an establishment within the Member State of import - Pharmacovigilance obligations))
   (2017/C 006/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Pau

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace), Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL, Soulard Max EARL, Francisco Xavier Erneta Azanza, Amestoya GAEC, La Vinardière GAEC reconnu, Lagunarte GAEC, André Jacques Iribarren, Ramuntcho Iribarren, Phyteron 2000 SAS, Cataloune SCL

      intervening party: Conseil national de l’Ordre des vétérinaires, formerly Conseil supérieur de l’Ordre des vétérinaires, Syndicat national des vétérinaires d’exercice libéral, Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which restricts access to parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products to wholesale distributors holding the authorisation laid down in Article 65 of Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 and which, consequently, excludes from access to such imports the livestock farmers wishing to import veterinary medicinal products for the needs of their own livestock farms;

               2.

               Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires livestock farmers who import in parallel veterinary medicinal products for the needs of their own livestock farms to have an establishment in the Member State of destination and to fulfil all the pharmacovigilance obligations laid down in Articles 72 to 79 of Directive 2001/82, as amended by Regulation No 596/2009.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case F-127/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Coto Moreno v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list of successful candidates — Assessment of written and oral tests)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Coto Moreno v Commission
   (Case F-127/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list of successful candidates - Assessment of written and oral tests)
   (2008/C 285/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Juana Maria Coto Moreno (Gaborone, Botswana) (represented by: K. Lemmens and C. Doutrelepont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Eggers and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO AD/25/05 of 12 February 2007 not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list of successful candidates for that competition — Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Ms Coto Moreno's action;

               2.

               Orders that each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 57.


title: Case T-216/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/19

         Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
   (Case T-216/12)
   2012/C 243/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haïfa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haïfa) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               admit this action for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               declare it to be admissible, and

               —

               primarily, declare the action well-founded and annul the decision for compensation of the Commission, Directorate General of Information Society and Media, contained in its letter of 13 March 2012, directed against TECHNION;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-657/11 Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2012 C 73, p. 28.


title: Action brought on 15 May 1997 by Fabienne Gutmann-Vormus against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-158/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/21
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             protection — also recognized by Community law — that
                                                                     each time he should be forced to bring legal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (') OJ No L 340, 31 . 12. 1993 , p. 41 .
In the course of researching the authorization of a type of
genetically modified maize, the applicant, who is
managing editor of a juridico-political review, twice
submitted a written request to the Commission for access             Action brought on 14 May 1997 by Glenn Phillips against
to documents. Apart from a communication to the effect                       the Commission of the European Communities
that the first request (which had been addressed to the                                        ( Case T-157/97)
Commission 's office in the Federal Republic of Germany )
would be forwarded to the Commission in Brussels, which                                          ( 97/C 228/50 )
is responsible for such matters, the Commission did not
reply to the applicant's requests .                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
In the applicant's view, the Commission's inaction                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
constitutes, in accordance with Article 2 (4 ), second               Instance of the European Communities on 14 May 1997
subparagraph, of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom, a                 by Glenn Phillips, residing in Brussels, represented by
final rejection of the request for access to the documents           Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(a 'constructive refusal') against which an action for               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the EC                 Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Treaty by virtue of the Code of conduct concerning public
access to Council and Commission documents (Decision
93/730/EC ) ('). The constructive refusal to send the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant the documents requested contravenes the right
of access conferred by Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                      — annul the Commission's decision of 22 July 1996
Euratom, since it is settled law that the applicant has a                 rejecting the applicant's request that it give
legitimate interest in the disclosure of information and the              consideration to the possible application of
Commission did not claim that this case constituted an                    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
exception; secondly, since the legal system of the great
majority of the Member States provides for access to such
                                                                     — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
documents, the Commission has also breached the general
                                                                          decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
legal principle of public access to documents held by the
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's complaint,
public authorities.
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
The applicant also argues that the Commission has
infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty since its failure to          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reply to the applicant's requests amounts to a constructive
refusal and therefore constitutes an individual measure
which must state the reasons on which it is based, and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
hence a decision .                                                   Case T- 16/97 ( l ).
                                                                     (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant further maintains that the Commission has
breached the obligation laid down in Article 1 of Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom to give reasons . Also, in view
of the close link between procedural rights and the
exercise of discretion, the Commission is guilty of a
misuse of powers, within the meaning of Article 173 of               Action brought on 15 May 1997 by Fabienne Gutmann
the EC Treaty.                                                       Vormus against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-158/97)
The applicant essentially relies on similar arguments in
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/51 )
support of his claim that the constructive refusal provided
for in Article 2 (4 ) of Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
should consequently be declared inapplicable, pursuant to                             (Language of the case: French)
Article 184 of the EC Treaty. The applicant asserts that he
has a special interest because it is to be expected that, as         An action against the Commission of the European
a journalist, he will again be confronted with the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Commission's administrative practice based on that rule,             Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1997
and it is contrary to the principle of effective legal               by Fabienne Gutmann-Vormus, residing in Brussels,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Massimo Marzola
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                 against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                      ( Case T-161/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/53 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 8 August 1996                                    (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                      An action against the Commission of the European
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              by Massimo Marzola, residing in Brussels, represented
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                     by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 — annul the Commission's decision refusing to transfer
Case T- 16/97 (').
                                                                            to the Community scheme the pension rights acquired
                                                                            by him in the USA between 1 March 1977 and
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
                                                                            31 August 1985 ,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Hans Gevaert against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-160/97 )                            The applicant states that, upon becoming established in
                                                                       March 1986, he requested the transfer to the Community
                            ( 97/C 228/52 )                            scheme of the pension rights acquired by him in a private
                 (Language of the case: French)                        pension scheme in the United States. In the absence of a
                                                                       favourable response, he took numerous steps to secure the
                                                                       transfer of rights acquired by him in an Italian pension
An action against the Commission of the European                       scheme, with a view to procuring the subsequent transfer
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      of those rights to the Community scheme . That course of
Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
                                                                       action, which was acceptable to the Commission, was
by Hans Gevaert, residing at Merelbeke ( Belgium ),                    rejected by the competent Italian administrative
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            authorities. On 27 August 1996 the applicant ultimately
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
                                                                       decided to submit a formal request under Article 90 ( 1 ) of
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       the Staff Regulations of Officials for the transfer to the
                                                                       Community scheme of the pension rights in issue . That
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            request was rejected by the defendant, on the ground that
                                                                       it had not been submitted within the prescribed period of
— annul the Commission's decision of 26 August 1996                    six months from the date of the applicant's appointment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    That rejection constitutes the decision which is contested
     consideration to the possible application of                      in the present case .
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's              The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 11 (2 )
                                                                       of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and breach of the
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                                                                       duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       officials; he maintains that the Commission provided him
                                                                       with incorrect information concerning the possibility of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           having the rights acquired in the United States transferred
                                                                       to the Community pension scheme and the procedure to
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   be followed for the submission of a request to that effect.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T- 16/97 (>).                                                    He also maintains that the contested decision is vitiated,
                                                                       contrary to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, by a total
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       absence of any relevant statement of reasons .