title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-151/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein): Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Concepts of "working time" and "rest period" — On-call service ("Bereitschaftsdienst") provided by doctors in hospitals)

text:
C 264/14                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and              1.    Compliance with the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive                    grounds of sex is a condition governing the legality of all
      1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council                        measures adopted by the Community institutions.
      of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
      information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of               2.    Examination of Question 1 has failed to disclose any factor
      the marketing of new passenger cars, the Italian Republic has                   capable of affecting the validity of the provision contained in
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                          Article 5(1) of Council Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 September
                                                                                1986 on specific training in general medical practice and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                   Article 34(1) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
                                                                                1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                                formal qualifications, according to which part-time training in
                                                                                general medical practice must include a certain number of
                                                                                periods of full-time training.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 9 September 2003
in Case C-25/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Katharina Rinke v
                     Ärztekammer Hamburg (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Equal treatment for men and women — Directives 86/457/
                                                                                of 9 September 2003
EEC and 93/16/EEC — Obligation to undertake certain
periods of full-time training during part-time training in
                       general medical practice)                                in Case C-151/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein): Landes-
                             (2003/C 264/23)                                                  hauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger (1)
                     (Language of the case: German)                             (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of
                                                                                workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Concepts of ‘working
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          time’ and ‘rest period’ — On-call service (‘Bereitschafts-
                     in the European Court Reports)                                         dienst’) provided by doctors in hospitals)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/24)
In Case C-25/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                                         (Language of the case: German)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Katharina Rinke and Ärztekammer Hamburg on the interpret-
ation of Article 5 of Council Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 Sep-                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
tember 1986 on specific training in general medical practice                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1986 L 267, p. 26) and Article 34 of Council Directive 93/
16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993                      In Case C-151/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
L 165, p. 1), and on the compatibility of those provisions with                 EC by the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)
the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
laid down in Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976                    court between Landeshauptstadt Kiel and Norbert Jaeger
on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                   on the interpretation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of
men and women as regards access to employment, vocational                       23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organis-
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                         ation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and, in particular,
L 39, p. 40), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  Articles 2(1) and (3) thereof, the Court, composed of: G.C. Ro-
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and                      dríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rappor-
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                         teur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,                 C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                   N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                   Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
given a judgment on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:                    on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 264/15
1.   Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concern-                 Penale di Perugia — Ufficio per le indagini preliminari —
     ing certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be          (District Civil and Criminal Court, Perugia — Preliminary
     interpreted as meaning that on-call duty (‘Bereitschaftsdienst’)         Investigations Section) of 12 June 2003, received at the Court
     performed by a doctor where he is required to be physically              Registry on 1st August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
     present in the hospital must be regarded as constituting in its          case against Alessandrello Rosario and Others on the following
     totality working time for the purposes of that directive even            questions:
     where the person concerned is permitted to rest at his place of
     work during the periods when his services are not required with
     the result that that directive precludes legislation of a Member
     State which classifies as rest periods an employee’s periods of
                                                                              1.   With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt
     inactivity in the context of such on-call duty.
                                                                                ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established
                                                                                by the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/
2.   Directive 93/104 must also be interpreted as meaning that:                    EEC (1) and Directive 78/660/EEC (2)), must the directives
                                                                                themselves and in particular the combined provisions of
     —      in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,                Article 44(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of
            that directive precludes legislation of a Member State                 the first directive (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2),
            which, in the case of on-call duty where physical presence             (3) and (4) of the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC),
            in the hospital is required, has the effect of enabling, in            as consolidated by Directive 83/349 (3) and Directive 90/
            an appropriate case by means of a collective agreement or              605 (4), be interpreted as meaning that that legislation
            a works agreement based on a collective agreement, an                  precludes a law of a Member State which, in amending
            offset only in respect of periods of on-call duty during               the system of penalties already in force in respect of
            which the worker has actually been engaged in professional             company law offences concerning the infringement of the
            activities;                                                            obligations imposed in order to safeguard the principle of
                                                                                public and accurate information on companies, lays
                                                                                down a sanctionative system which in the specific
     —      in order to come within the derogating provisions set out              instance is not informed by the criteria of effectiveness,
            in Article 17(2), subparagraph 2.1(c)(i) of the directive,             proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions
            a reduction in the daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours           imposed in order to ensure that that principle is upheld?
            by a period of on-call duty performed in addition to
            normal working time is subject to the condition that
            equivalent compensating rest periods be accorded to the
            workers concerned at times immediately following the
            corresponding periods worked;                                     2.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
                                                                                of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
                                                                                (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
     —      furthermore, in no circumstances may such a reduction in
                                                                                fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
            the daily rest period lead to the maximum weekly working
                                                                                by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
            time laid down in Article 6 of the directive being exceeded.
                                                                                as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
                                                                                Member State which does not make it a punishable
                                                                                offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                                         disclosure and the provisions of accurate information on
                                                                                certain company documents (including the balance sheet
                                                                                and the profit and loss account) where the disclosure
                                                                                of false company accounts or the failure to provide
                                                                                information result in a distortion of the financial results
                                                                                for a given period, or a distortion in the net assets, which
                                                                                does not exceed a certain percentage threshold?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
e Penale di Perugia — Ufficio per le indagini preliminari                     3.   Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
— by order of that Court of 12 June 2003 in the case                               of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
          against Alessandrello Rosario and Others                                 (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                                                                                fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
                           (Case C-338/03)                                         by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
                                                                                as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
                                                                                Member State which does not make it a punishable
                           (2003/C 264/25)                                         offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
                                                                                disclosure and the provision of accurate information
                                                                                where statements are made which, although aimed at
                                                                                deceiving members or the public with a view to securing
                                                                                an unjust profit, are the consequence of estimated
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             valuations which, taken individually, depart from actual
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e                            values to an extent not greater than a certain threshold?


title: Case T-236/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/59

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Kronotex and Kronoply v Commission
   (Case T-236/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/71)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany); and Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Kronetex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-173/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/22

         Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)
   (Case T-173/16)
   (2016/C 232/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Christoph Wöhlke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. Rust-Sorge, lawyer).

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Danielle Roches SARL (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALIQUA’ – Application for registration No 12 079 381

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2016 in Case R 905/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               revoke the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(2) in connection with Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-157/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH (Freedom of establishment — European Economic Area Agreement (EEA) — Tax legislation — Tax treatment of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State of the EEA and belonging to a company having its seat in a Member State of the European Union)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH
   (Case C-157/07) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - European Economic Area Agreement (EEA) - Tax legislation - Tax treatment of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State of the EEA and belonging to a company having its seat in a Member State of the European Union)
   (2008/C 313/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin

      Defendant: Krankenheim Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1) — Double taxation convention which provides for taxation of profits made by a branch office in the State where it is established — Deduction from taxable profit of company principal office of branch office losses — No possibility for branch office to carry over fiscal losses to a subsequent period of assessment — Reintegration by State where company principal office established of total deducted losses of branch office
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 does not preclude a national tax system which, after having allowed the taking into account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a State other than the one in which its principal company is situated, for the purposes of calculating the tax on that company's income, provides for a tax reintegration of those losses at the time when that permanent establishment makes profits, where the State where that same permanent establishment is situated does not confer any right to carry forward losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to a company established in another State, and where, under a convention for the prevention of double taxation between the two States concerned, the income of such an entity is exonerated from taxation in the State in which the principal company has its seat.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-278/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Competition for the recruitment of teaching staff in Italian State schools — Failure to take account of or insufficient account taken of professional experience acquired in other Member States — Article 39 EC — Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-278/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Competition for the recruitment of teaching staff in Italian State schools - Failure to take account of or insufficient account taken of professional experience acquired in other Member States - Article 39 EC - Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)
   (2005/C 182/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-278/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M.-J. Jonczy) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato ) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 June 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka,, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community inasmuch as for the purposes of participation by Community nationals in competitions to recruit teaching staff in Italian State schools professional teaching experience acquired by those nationals is not taken into account, or at least not taken into account in the same way, depending on whether the teaching was carried out in Italy or in other Member States;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case T-451/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2017 — Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie v Commission (Application for interim measures — Calculation of greenhouse gas emissions — Biodiesel — European Commission Communication BK/abd/ener.c.1(2017)2122195 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/13

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2017 — Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie v Commission
   (Case T-451/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Calculation of greenhouse gas emissions - Biodiesel - European Commission Communication BK/abd/ener.c.1(2017)2122195 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 357/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Stein, P. Friton and H.-J. Prieß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker, J.-F. Brakeland and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Communication BK/abd/ener.c.1(2017)2122195 of 27 April 2017.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-388/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU word mark JN-JOY — Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Assessment criteria — Composite mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)
   (Case T-388/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark JN-JOY - Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Assessment criteria - Composite mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 151/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua, C. Pirenne and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1353/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case F-92/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/83

         Action brought on 26 June 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-92/15)
   (2015/C 294/100)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action seeking annulment of both the decision to reassess the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate and the decision partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 6 October 2014 to the extent that it fixes the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity rate at only 68,5 %;

               —

               annul the decision of 18 March 2015 partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 January 2015;

               —

               order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 1 10  000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.


title: Case C-506/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht — Germany) — Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Self-employed frontier workers — Agricultural lease — Agricultural structure — Legislation of a Member State enabling an objection to be made to the contract if the goods produced in national territory by the self employed Swiss frontier farmers are intended to be exported, free of duty, to Switzerland)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht — Germany) — Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt
   (Case C-506/10) (1)

   (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Self-employed frontier workers - Agricultural lease - Agricultural structure - Legislation of a Member State enabling an objection to be made to the contract if the goods produced in national territory by the self employed Swiss frontier farmers are intended to be exported, free of duty, to Switzerland)
   2011/C 347/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rico Graf, Rudolf Engel

      Defendant: Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen, Landwirtschaftsgericht — Interpretation of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Objection by the competent authority of a Member State to an agricultural tenancy agreement in respect of agricultural land in that State and concluded with a Swiss farmer whose business is established in Switzerland — National legislation allowing such an objection, on the ground of a distortion of competition, in respect of land used for the production of agricultural products to be exported free of duty outside the internal market

      Operative part

   The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authority of that Member State may object to an agricultural lease — relating to land located in a given area of the territory of that Member State and concluded between a resident of that Member State and a frontier-zone resident of the other contracting party — on the grounds that the land leased is used for producing agricultural products intended for export, free of duty, outside the internal market of the European Union and so gives rise to distortion of competition, if the application of that legislation affects a much greater number of nationals of the other Contracting Party than nationals of the Member State on whose territory that legislation applies. It is for the national court to determine whether that latter situation in fact exists.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-73/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage), Belgium lodged on 22 February 2008 — Nicolas Bressol and Others and Céline Chaverot and Others v Gouvernement de la Communauté française

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage), Belgium lodged on 22 February 2008 — Nicolas Bressol and Others and Céline Chaverot and Others v Gouvernement de la Communauté française
   (Case C-73/08)
   (2008/C 116/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nicolas Bressol and Others and Céline Chaverot and Others

      Defendant: Gouvernement de la Communauté française
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the first paragraph of Article 12 and Article 18(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, in conjunction with Article 149(1), the second indent of Article 149(2) and the third indent of Article 150(2) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude an autonomous community in a Member State with responsibility for higher education, which is faced, as a result of a restrictive policy practised by a neighbouring Member State, with an influx of students from the neighbouring Member State in a number of programmes of study of a medical nature financed principally out of public funds, from adopting measures such as those contained in the Decree of the French Community of 16 June 2006 regulating the number of students in certain programmes in the first two years of undergraduate studies in higher education, when that community relies on valid reasons for claiming that that situation could place an excessive burden on public finances and jeopardise the quality of the education provided?

               2.

               Would the answer to the first question be different if that community could show that the effect of that situation is that too few students residing in the community in question obtain diplomas for there to be, over a long period, a sufficient number of qualified medical personnel to ensure the quality of the public health system in that community?

               3.

               Would the answer to the first question be different if that community, having regard to the last part of Article 149(1) of the Treaty and Article 13(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which contains a standstill obligation, chooses to maintain wide and democratic access to quality higher education for the population of that community?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Case C-239/97: Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities (Admissibility - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Unforeseeable circumstances - Force majeure)

text:
C 278/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
2. Reisebüro Binder GmbH shall bear its own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 25 May 1998
( ) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
 1
                                                                    in Case C-80/97: SocieÂteÂ des Caves et des Producteurs
                                                                    ReÂunis des Roquefort and Others v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Cases brought before the Court of Justice and the Court
                                                                    of First Instance having as their subject-matter the
                                                                    annulment of the same act Ð Disclaimer of jurisdiction by
                                                                                the Court of First Instance)
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         (98/C 278/14)
                        (First Chamber)
                        of 7 May 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-239/97: Ireland v. Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)
(Admissibility Ð Time limit for bringing proceedings Ð
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       Unforeseeable circumstances Ð Force majeure)
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 278/13)
                                                                    In Case C-80/97: SocieÂteÂ des Caves et des Producteurs
                                                                    ReÂunis de Roquefort, established in Roquefort-sur-Salzon
               (Language of the case: English)                      (France), SocieÂteÂ FromageÁre Corse, established in Bastia
                                                                    (France), SocieÂteÂ pour la Valorisation du Lait de Brebis
                                                                    du Grand Sud-Ouest (Valbreso), established in La
                                                                    Canourgue (France), La Compagnie des Fromages SAS,
In Case C-239/97: Ireland, represented by Michael A.                established in Vire (France), Fromager du Causse SARL,
Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent, and by Paul        established in Roquefort (France), Alliance Agro-
Gallagher, SC, and Niamh Hyland, barrister-at-law, v.               Alimentaire SCC (3A), established in Toulouse (France),
Commission of the European Communities, represented                 ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Producteurs de Lait de Brebis
by Peter Oliver Ð application for the annulment of                  et des Industriels de Roquefort, established in Millau
Commission Decision C(97) 693 of 16 April 1997                      Millau (France), represented by F. Ancel, of the Paris Bar,
concerning the reduction of assistance from the European            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the operational                 Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, against
programme for Tourism in Ireland 1989Ð93 within the                 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. L.
Community support framework for structural assistance               Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid), supported by
under Objective 1 in Ireland for the period 1989Ð93 and             Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monado Ioanninon Pindos
amending Decision C(89) 2258/7 of 21 December 1989 as               AEBE, having its head office in Ioannina (Greece),
last amended by Decision C(93) 3769 of 17 December                  represented by N. Korojiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with
1993 Ð the Court (First Chamber), compsed of: M.                    an address for service in Luxembourg at Brown Holding
Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and             SA, 310 Route d'Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg Ð application
L. Sevón, Judges; M. Mischo, Advocate-General; R. Grass,            for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
Registrar, made an order on 7 May 1998, the operative               No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
part of which is as follows:                                        geographical indications and designations of origin under
                                                                    the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
                                                                    Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1)
                                                                    in so far as it registers the name feta' as a protected
                                                                    designation of origin Ð the Court, composed of G. C.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
                                                                    Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
                                                                    Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                    Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
2. Ireland shall pay the costs.                                     J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M.
                                                                    Ioannou, judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
                                                                    Grass, Registrar, made an order on 25 May 1998, the
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                    1. Case C-80/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.


title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-100/98)

text:
24.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/27
which the Commission must observe when it adopts                     economics and part of the professional experience when
administrative measures.                                             classifying him.
                                                                     Although the directive on higher-education diplomas (1)
                                                                     does not bind the Community institutions directly, it
                                                                     would nevertheless be paradoxical if those institutions
                                                                     placed a different meaning on higher-education diploma'
Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Jürgen Wettig against
                                                                     and thereby disregarded the objectives and provisions of
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     the directive.
                       (Case T-91/98)
                        (98/C 327/49)                                (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC, (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by               Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
Jürgen Wettig, of Brussels, Belgium, represented by Peter               against the Commission of the European Communities
Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr                                      (Case T-100/98)
Johannes Henricus Van Vliet, 49 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                (98/C 327/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 5 November
    1997 definitively classifying him in Step 1 of Grade
    A 5 from 1 October 1996;                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
Ð order the defendant to classify him in Step 2 of his               by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John
    current grade retroactively from 1 October 1996;                 Murphy, Merriman White, 3, King's Bench Walk, Inner
                                                                     Temple, London EC4Y 7DJ, United Kingdom.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
The applicant, a graduate of the Fachhochschule für                       84/450/EEC (1) to the extent that the Citizens First
Finanzen (higher education establishment specialising in                  Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
finance) of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, has been                  Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the
working as a member of the Commission's temporary staff                   United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to
(in Directorate E of Directorate General XI) since                        specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom
1 October 1996. In accordance with clause 3 of his                        in order to promote the supply of specialist medical
contract of employment, he was classified in Step 1 of                    services by a category of medical practitioners who are
Grade A 5.                                                                not qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
                                                                          profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
                                                                          and who have not completed the prescribed specialist
The applicant contends that when he took up his duties he                 medical training at Community level and national
already had more than 16 years' professional experience                   level and thereby do not offer the minimum safeguards
which was to be taken into account. Nevertheless, in                      required by Community law for practising a medical
breach of his right to be classified in the appropriate (or               specialty regulated by Community law as a specialist
definitive') step, the initial classification was retained,              medical practitioner;
although that is inconsistent with the Commission's
current administrative practice.
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
By recruiting the applicant in Grade A 5, the appointing                  84/450/EEC to the extent that the Citizens First
authority had implicitly recognised his diploma in                        Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
     Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the         nature and effects of the rules applicable to specialist
     United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to            medical practitioners in the United Kingdom from the
     specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom          persons subject to their jurisdiction in order to deprive
     in order not to promote the supply of specialist                them of their substance and thereby to sanction the illegal
     medical services by a category of medical practitioners         transfer of the status of Community Medical Specialist'
     who are qualified by law to practise the regulated              from one category of medical practitioners Ð those who
     medical profession as licensed specialist medical               are qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
     practitioners and who have completed the prescribed             profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
     specialist medical training at Community level and              recognised at Community level Ð to another category of
     national level and thereby offer the minimum                    medical practitioners Ð those who are not qualified by
     safeguards required by community law for practising a           law to practise the regulated medical profession as
     medical specialty regulated by Community law as a               licensed specialist medical practitioners recognised at
     specialist medical practitioner;                                Community level.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation to be                      (2) Case T-235/95, OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 19.
     determined by the Court ex aequo et bono or by an                   Case T-262/97, OJ C 370, 6.12.1997, p. 8.
     expert together with default interest at a rate to be               Case T-286/97, OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                     (3) Case C-148/96 P(R), (1996) ECR I-3883.
     fixed by the Court for the non-material damage
                                                                         Case C-78/97 P(R), (not published).
     suffered by the applicant, a specialist medical                     Case C-199/98 P(R), pending.
     practitioner in rheumatology recognised at Community
     level, and listed on the Specialist List, in so far as the
     defendant misrepresent the legal status of the category
     of medical practitioners legally entitled to practise as
     specialist medical practitioners recognised at
     Community level in the Citizens First Factsheet on the
     Recognition of Diplomas and Qualifications of
     General and Specialist Doctors in the United Kingdom            Action brought on 14 July 1998 by SocietaÁ Camar s.r.l.
     thereby tarnishing their professional reputation; and           and SocietaÁ Tico s.r.l. against Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-117/98)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 327/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant is a medical practitioner of British                   An action against the Commission of the European
nationality residing in the United Kingdom, who has                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
already brought several cases to the Court of First                  Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1998
Instance of the European Communities (2) and the Court               by SocietaÁ Camar s.r.l. and SocietaÁ Tico s.r.l., represented
of Justice of the European Communities (3). He now                   by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Mariano Paolin
claims having suffered damage caused by the                          and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
Commission's failure to exercise the supervisory powers of           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst
surveillance and control conferred on it by the EC Treaty            Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
in accordance with the prescribed legal framework to
adopt the measures necessary under Article 162 of the EC
Treaty to ensure that both it and its departments operate            The applicants claim that the Court should:
in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty to
guarantee the information contained in the Citizens First
Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and                         Ð annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the                   Treaty, the Commission decision Ð communicated by
United Kingdom is in conformity with Council Directive                    a letter from Franz Fischler, a Member of the
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 and thereby protect                       Commission, dated 23/24 April 1998 and received
the legitimate interests of the applicant.                                on 14 May 1998 Ð rejecting an application for
                                                                          adaptation of the tariff quota for imports of bananas,
                                                                          pursuant to Article 16(3) of Commission Regulation
The applicant submits that his damage derives from the                    (EEC) No 1442/93 (1);
illegal publication in breach of this Directive by the
Commission, of false information contained in the
Citizens First Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas              Ð order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and
and Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in                   the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
the United Kingdom which conceals the Community                           to pay compensation for damage;


title: Removal from the register of C-154/97

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/13
          Removal from the register of C-92/97 (1)                  removal from the register of Case C-121/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/40)                               of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany.
By order of 11 November 1997, the President of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities has                    (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-92/97:
Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
Belgium.
(1) OJ C 108, 5. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-154/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/43)
                                                                    By order of 8 October 1997, the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-96/97 ( ) 1                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-154/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/41)
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of           (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-96/97: Commission of
the European Communities v. French Republic.
(1) OJ C 131, 26. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-201/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/44)
                                                                    By order of 21 October 1997, the President of the Court
         Removal from the register of C-121/97 (1)                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                          (98/C 7/42)                               removal from the register of Case C-201/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against
                                                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: Martin Bauer and
                      of 21 October 1997                            TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of a
                                                                    decision not to promote Ð the Court of First Instance
in Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis v. Council of the
                                                                    (Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                      European Union (1)
                                                                    C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
                                                                    a judgment on 21 October 1997, the operative part of
(Officials Ð Decision not to promote Ð Consideration of
                                                                    which is as follows:
comparative merits Ð Leave on grounds of sickness and
accident Ð Account taken of the work actually done
                 during the reference period)
                          (98/C 7/45)                               1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                    2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.
In Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis, represented by Jean-
NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseur and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at


title: Case C-154/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hässleholms Tingsrätt by order of that Court of 22 April 2002 in the case against Jan Nilsson

text:
15.6.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/27
     —      impede the Italian establishment of a limited com-                 —     require production of an attestation from the diplo-
            pany whose principal business is in the United                           matic representation — Italian consulate in the
            Kingdom from carrying on in the host state the                           foreign country in which the degree was awarded —
            business of organising and administering courses of                      proving actual residence in that country by the
            study for preparation for university examinations,                       person concerned for the whole period of the
            for which the company is duly authorised and                             university studies;
            accredited by the United Kingdom public auth-
            orities?
                                                                               —     limit recognition of degrees ‘solely’ to pursuit of a
                                                                                profession already pursued in the State of origin,
                                                                                thus precluding recognition for the purposes of
     —      discriminate as between nationals pursuing the same                      access to a regulated profession even though not
            activities;                                                              previously exercised.
                                                                         3.    What is the meaning and scope of the expression ‘harmful
     —      prohibit and/or seriously impede the Italian estab-                interruption (...) of vocational training’ in Council
            lishment of that undertaking in obtaining, in another              Decision 63/266/EEC (3) and does it cover the creation at
            Member State and for valuable consideration, the                   national level by the public authorities of a permanent
            services conducive to the pursuit of the abovemen-                 system of information which evidences that degrees
            tioned activity;                                                   awarded by a university, even though legally recognised
                                                                               in the United Kingdom, cannot be recognised under
                                                                               national legislation if they have been obtained on the
                                                                               basis of periods of study completed in Italy.
     —      discourage students from enrolling in those courses
            of study;
                                                                         (1) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002, p. 2.
     —      impede the professional training of enrolled students
                                                                         (3) OJ 63 of 20.4.1963, p. 1338.
            and the obtaining of an award capable of conferring
            on its holder advantages either in securing access to
            a professional activity or in exercising it with greater
            reward in other Member States as well.
2.   On an interpretation — herein requested — of Article 2
     of Council Directive 89/48/EC (1), does that directive
     confer rights which may be relied on also before acqui-
     sition of the degree mentioned in Article 1 of the directive        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hässleholms
     itself. If the reply to that question is affirmative, does the      Tingsrätt by order of that Court of 22 April 2002 in the
     directive itself, regard also being had to the judgment in                               case against Jan Nilsson
     Case C-145/99 Commission v Italian Republic [2001] (2),
     permit rules or administrative practices in the national
     legal order which:                                                                           (Case C-154/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/46)
     —      make recognition of university degrees obtained on
            completion of training of at least three years’
            duration subject to the discretion of the public
            authorities;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Hässleholms Tingsrätt
                                                                         (district court) of 22 April 2002, received at the Court Registry
     —      grant recognition in Italy of degrees awarded by             on 26 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case against
            universities recognised in the United Kingdom only           Jan Nilsson on the following questions:
            if completed after regular attendance for the whole
            course of studies at those universities, to the
            exclusion therefore of degrees awarded to Italian            1)    Do stuffed animals listed in Annex A fall within the
            nationals on the basis of periods of study completed               definition of ‘worked specimens’?
            with foreign institutions operating in Italy even
            though they are approved and accredited by the
            competent public authorities in the Member State to          2)    What is covered by the term ‘acquire’ in Article 8(3) of
            which they belong;                                                 Regulation No 338/97(1)?
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
3)    Must the person who acquired the specimen more than                 —     point H(e) of that annex (relating to Italy) includes,
      50 years previously be the present owner?                                 amongst the benefits under the Italian system which are
                                                                                subject to residence requirements, benefits supplementing
                                                                                the minimum pension;
4)    Do the provisions on exemption in Article 32 of Regu-
      lation No 1808/2001 (2) mean that no assessment by the
                                                                          —     benefits supplementing the minimum pension do not
      authority in accordance with Article 2(w) of Regulation
                                                                                possess the characteristics of an autonomous benefit, but
      No 338/97 is required?
                                                                                must instead be regarded as an integral element of the
                                                                                benefit to be awarded,
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the           —     the Court of Justice is requested to give a preliminary
    protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade           ruling on the validity of Annex IIa of Regulation No 1408/
    therein (OJ L 061 of 3.3.1997, p. 1).                                       71, inasmuch as it includes amongst the ‘non-exportable’
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of 30 August 2001                   benefits listed in point H(e) (relating to Italy) the sup-
    laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of                 plement to the minimum pension as provided for by the
    Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species              Italian legislation;
    of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 250 of
    19.9.2001, p. 1).
                                                                          in other words, a ruling is requested on the question whether
                                                                          that annex is compatible with Articles 39 and 42 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty inasmuch as it precludes the exportability not of a
                                                                          special non-contributory benefit but rather of an element of a
                                                                          contributory benefit (in this case, an old-age pension) which
                                                                          cannot be subject to any residence requirement.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Roma by order of that Court of 5 April 2002 in the
case of Lidia Marcaletti against Istituto nazionale della
                    previdenza sociale (INPS)
                         (Case C-158/02)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2002/C 144/47)
                                                                                (Case C-165/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/48)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma
(Rome District Court) of 5 April 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Lidia Marcaletti against Istituto nazionale della previdenza           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
sociale (INPS) (National Social Welfare Institution) on the               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
following questions: Whereas:                                             Communities on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                          represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
—     Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) lists the              Embassy, 4-6, boulevard E. Servais.
      benefits from amongst the various branches of social
      security which fall within the substantive scope of that
      regulation;                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 (1) of
—     Article 1(t) sets out a Community definition of the terms
                                                                                19 March 2002 establishing additional technical
      ‘benefits’ and ‘pensions’;
                                                                                measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES
                                                                                sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a,
—     Annex IIa, introduced by Regulation No 1247/92 (2) of                     b, d, e;
      30 April 1992, refers to the special non-contributory
      benefits which are subject to residence conditions;                 —    order the defendant institution to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 27 October 1998 in Case C-364/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 93/103/EC)

text:
19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/9
Provinciale (Provincial Tax Court), Milan (Italy) for a           obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (First
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
court between Abruzzi Gas SpA (Agas) and                          of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La
Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano Ð on the                     Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July         a judgment on 27 October 1998, in which it:
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
(OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ
L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),             1. Declares that, failing to adopt within the period
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Second Chamber,               prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F.                   provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and                   93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                    minimum safety and health requirements for work on
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                  board fishing vessels (13th individual directive within
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 October 1998, in                 the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/
which it has ruled:                                                    EEC), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       Article 13(1) thereof;
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning           2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not
preclude the levying of registration duty in respect of the       (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
acquisition of companies by a company which already
holds all the shares in the companies acquired.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 October 1998
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-185/96: Commission of the European
                                                                               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                     of 27 October 1998                                    Benefits for large families Ð Discrimination)
      in Case C-364/97: Commission of the European                                         (98/C 397/15)
                  Communities v. Ireland (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Non-transposition of
                    Directive 93/103/EC)                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                         (98/C 397/14)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  In Case C-185/96: Commission of the European
In Case C-364/97: Commission of the European                      Communities (Agent: Maria Patakia) v. Hellenic Republic
Communities (Agent: Pieter Jan Kuijper) v. Ireland (Agent:        (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Stamatina
Michael A. Buckley) Ð application for a declaration that,         Vodina) Ð application for a declaration that, by
by not adopting and/or by not communicating to the                precluding by regulation or administrative practice on the
Commission the laws, regulations and administrative               grounds of their nationality employed or self-employed
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/         workers from other Member States and the members of
103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum                 their families from being attributed large-family status for
safety and health requirements for work on board fishing          the purpose of the award of special benefits for such
vessels (13th individual directive within the meaning of          families and from being awarded family allowances, the
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 307,                 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
13.12.1993, p. 1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its               Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Council


title: Case C-162/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo lodged on  27 March 2006  — International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado — Correos

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo lodged on 27 March 2006 — International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado — Correos
   (Case C-162/06)
   (2006/C 143/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: International Mail Spain SL

      Defendant: Administración del Estado — Correos
   Question referred
   ‘Does Article 7(2) [prior to its amendment by Directive 2002/39/EC] of Directive 97/67/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, which authorises Member States to include cross-border mail in the reserved postal services, allow them to establish that reservation only insofar as they are able to prove that, without it, the economic equilibrium of the universal service provider is at risk, or, instead, does it also allow them to retain it for other reasons, among them reasons of expediency, relating to the overall situation in the postal sector, including the degree of liberalisation in that sector at the time the reservation is decided?’

      (1)  OJ L 15, 21.01.1998, p. 14.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 October 1998 in Case T-25/96 (92): Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Another v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 20/30              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.1.1999
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Instance of the European Communities on 3 November
                     of 23 October 1998                             1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA, represented by T. R.
                                                                    Ottervanger, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Case T-25/96 (92): Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher                 the Office of Loeff Clayes Verbeke, 5, Rue Charles
Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Another v. Commission of the              Martel, L-2134 Luxembourg.
                  European Communities (1)
                     (Taxation of costs)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (1999/C 20/54)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to start
                                                                        proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty
In Case T-25/96 (92): (1) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher                 against the Federal Republic of Germany with regard
Luftfahrt-Unternehmen, established in Bonn, composed of                 to the state aid issues raised in the complaint of the
the following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH &                     applicant.
Co. Luftverkehrs-KG, established at Oberursel (Germany),
Air Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in
Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established at
Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,                applicant in the present proceedings.
established at Langenhagen (Germany) and LTU
Lufttransport Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established
in Düsseldorf, and (2) Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
established at Langenhagen (Germany), represented by
Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   On 7 July 1994, the applicant, part of the United Parcel
Baden, 34 b Rue Philippe II, v. Commission of the                   Service' (UPS) group of companies, which is active
European Communities (agent: Paul Nemitz) Ð                         worldwide in the business of parcel delivery, lodged a
application for taxation of costs pursuant to the order             complaint with the Commission asking it to initiate
made by the Court of First Instance on 14 March 1997 in             proceedings to establish among other things that abusive
Case T-25/96 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Un-            market behaviour by, and cross-subsidisation with respect
ternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd v. Commission [1997] ECR                  to, Deutsche Bundespost Postdienst, now Deutsche Post
II-363 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber,                AG, are contrary to the EC Treaty, in particular
Extended Composition), composed of: J. D. Cooke,                    Articles 86, 90, 92 and 93 thereof.
President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 23 October 1998, the operative part of which is as               On 19 December 1997, the Commission sent a letter
follows:                                                            stating that it would start proceedings under Article 93(2)
                                                                    of the Treaty at the beginning of next year'. On 10 August
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the               1998, the applicant sent a letter requesting the
Commission to the applicants is fixed in the sum of                 Commission take a position on its complaint against the
DEM 30 000, together with any VAT payable on that                   Federal Republic of Germany under Article 92. On
sum.                                                                2 October 1998, the Commission wrote in response to this
                                                                    request that it would examine' the position and the
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.                                            behaviour of Deutsche Post AG under Article 86 of the
                                                                    Treaty and would not start Ð at least for the time being
                                                                    Ð a procedure under Article 93 (the contested decision).
                                                                    In support of its application, the applicant puts forward
Action brought on 3 November 1998 by UPS Europe                     four pleas:
NV/SA against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                       (Case T-182/98)                              1. The Commission has infringed Article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                        Treaty by not initiating a procedure under this article
                        (1999/C 20/55)                                  against the Federal Republic of Germany. In its letter
                                                                        of 19 December 1997, the Commission indicated that
               (Language of the case: English)                          it would start proceedings at the beginning of 1998. In
                                                                        the applicant's view, this statement implies that at that
An action against the Commission of the European                        point in time the Commission had reached the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       conclusion that it experienced serious difficulties in


title: Case C-301/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 June 2012 — Cascina Tre Pini s.s. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 June 2012 — Cascina Tre Pini s.s. v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others
   (Case C-301/12)
   2012/C 258/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cascina Tre Pini s. s.

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others

      Questions referred

               I.

                           1.

                           Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which power is conferred on the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces to propose, of their own motion, a review of the [Sites of Community Importance, ‘SCIs’], but no obligation is placed on them to exercise that power in response to a reasoned request to that effect made by private owners of land falling within SCIs, even where those private individuals argue that the land has suffered environmental degradation?

                           2.

                           Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which power is conferred on the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces to propose, of their own motion, a review of the SCIs, through a periodic assessment, but the frequency with which that review must be conducted (every two or three years, for example) is not specified and there is no obligation for notice to be given of the periodic review by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces by means of some form of general advertising campaign designed to enable stakeholders to submit comments or proposals?

                           3.

                           Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which a power of initiative is conferred on the Regions and Autonomous Provinces in relation to the review of the SCIs, but no power of initiative is also conferred on the State, even to act in lieu of the Regions or Autonomous Provinces in the event that they fail to act?

                           4.

                           Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which power is conferred on the Regions and Autonomous Provinces to propose, of their own motion, a review of the SCIs, where that power is entirely discretionary and not mandatory, even where pollution or environmental degradation has taken place and this has been formally confirmed?

               II.

               … Must the procedure governed by Article 9 [of Directive] 92/43/EEC, implemented by the national legislature by means of Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic, be interpreted as a procedure which must close with the adoption of an administrative act, or as a procedure the outcome of which is merely ‘optional’? Is it necessary to construe a ‘procedure which must close with the adoption of an administrative act’ as a procedure which ‘where the conditions are satisfied, consists in the transmission of the regional proposal, by the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Land, to the European Commission’, there being no need in that regard for any consideration as to whether it must be construed as a procedure which may be instigated only by the authority of its own motion or whether it may also be instigated at the request of a party?

               III.

                           1.

                           Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which it is necessary to initiate the declassification procedure, rather than to adopt further monitoring and protection measures, on the basis of a report from a private party concerning the degree of degradation of the site?

                           2.

                           Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which the declassification procedure must be initiated in relation to a site covered by the Natura 2000 network in order to protect exclusively private interests of a commercial nature?

                           3.

                           Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in the context of infrastructure projects in the general, social and economic interest — acknowledged also by the European Union — which may be detrimental to a natural habitat recognised in accordance with that directive, it is necessary to initiate a procedure for the declassification of the site rather than to adopt countervailing measures to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network?

                           4.

                           Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which, as regards natural habitats, importance is attributed to the commercial interests of individual owners, enabling them to obtain from the national court a decision requiring the boundaries of the site to be re-drawn?

                           5.

                           Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which provision is made for a site to be declassified where it has suffered degradation which is anthropogenic and not natural in origin?

      (1)  OJ L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-673/11: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/29

         Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)
   (Case T-673/11) (1)

   2013/C 189/60
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-498/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/20

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission
   (Case T-498/14)
   2014/C 329/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and R. Geulen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its action.
   Right of access to the written correspondence between the European Commission and the undertakings Honeywell and DuPont and automobile manufacturers regarding the new refrigerant R1234yf

               —

               The applicant submits that the Commission failed to recognise the applicant’s right of access under the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1). According to that provision, documents of the institutions must always be made accessible if they relate to emissions into the environment. The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 contains a statutory presumption that the interest in disclosure of the information takes precedence over the interest of undertakings in ensuring their protection.

               —

               The applicant further submits that the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 constitutes an explicit rule for the interpretation of the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2). The first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006, it argues, modifies what is stated in Regulation No 1049/2001 as soon as documents relate to emissions into the environment. The applicant submits that the documents withheld presumably contain information on the refrigerants R1234yf and R134a, which are harmful to health and to the climate, and that the quantities of poisonous hydrogen fluoride emissions can be deduced from the declarations, assessments and proposals of automobile manufacturers and refrigerant producers with regard to the use of those chemicals.

               —

               In the alternative, the applicant submits that access to the requested documents must itself be granted on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The condition governing the exception set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is, it argues, not satisfied. In addition, there is an overriding interest in access to the documents because the health risks linked to use of the refrigerant are significant.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-94/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, D. I. Mannocchi Luigino v Provincia di Fermo

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, D. I. Mannocchi Luigino v Provincia di Fermo
   (Case C-94/12)
   2012/C 151/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, D. I. Mannocchi Luigino

      Defendant: Provincia di Fermo

      Question referred

   Must Article 47(2) of Directive 18/2004/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding, in principle, the legislation of a Member State, such as the Italian legislation set out in Article 49(6) of Legislative Decree No 163/2006, which prohibits, except in special circumstances, reliance on the capacities of more than one auxiliary undertaking, and provides that ‘[f]or works contracts, the tenderer may rely on the capacities of only one auxiliary undertaking for each qualification category. The invitation to tender may permit reliance on the capacities of more than one auxiliary undertaking on account of the value of the contract or the special nature of the services to be provided …’?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.