title: Case C-377/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2014 — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v Finway a.s.

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2014 — Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová v Finway a.s.
      (Case C-377/14)
      (2014/C 395/28)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Krajský soud v Praze

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Ernst Georg Radlinger, Helena Radlingerová

         Defendant: Finway a.s.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘the Directive on Unfair Terms’) and Article 22(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (‘the Directive on Consumer Credit Agreements’) or other provisions of EU law on consumer protection preclude:

                              —

                              the concept of Law No 182/2006 on bankruptcy and the modes of its resolution (zákon č. 182/2006 Sb., o úpadku a způsobech jeho řešení) (the Law on Insolvency), as amended by Law No 185/2013 (‘the Law on Insolvency’), which enables the court to examine the authenticity, amount or ranking of claims stemming from consumer relations only on the basis of an incidental application lodged by the administrator in bankruptcy, a creditor or (under the abovementioned restrictions) the debtor (consumer)?

                              —

                              provisions which, in the context of the national legislation governing insolvency proceedings, restrict the right of the debtor (consumer) to request review by the court of the registered claims of creditors (suppliers of goods or services) solely to cases in which the resolution of the consumer’s bankruptcy in the form of a discharge is approved, and in this context only in relation to creditors’ unsecured claims, with the objections of the debtor being further limited, in the case of enforceable claims acknowledged by a decision of the competent authority, solely to the possibility of asserting that the claim has lapsed or is time-barred, as laid down in the provisions of Paragraph 192(3) and Paragraph 410(2) and (3) of the Law on Insolvency?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the court in proceedings concerning the examination of claims under a consumer credit agreement required to have regard ex officio, even in the absence of an objection on the part of the consumer, to the credit supplier’s failure to fulfil the information requirements under Article 10(2) of the Directive on Consumer Credit Agreements and to infer the consequences provided for in national law in the form of the invalidity of the contractual arrangements?

            If Question 1 or 2 is answered in the affirmative:

                  3.

                  Do the provisions of the directives applied above have direct effect and is their direct application precluded by the fact that the initiation of an incidental action by the court ex officio (or, from the point of view of national law, the inadmissible review of a claim on the basis of an ineffective contestation by the debtor-consumer) encroaches on the horizontal relationship between the consumer and the supplier of goods or services?

                  4.

                  What amount is represented by ‘the total amount of credit’ in accordance with Article 10(2)(d) of the Directive on Consumer Credit Agreements and what amounts are included as ‘the amounts of drawdown’ in the calculation of the annual percentage rate (APR) according to the formula set out in Annex I to the Directive on Consumer Credit Agreements, if the credit agreement formally promises the payment of a specific financial amount but at the same time it is agreed that, as soon as the credit is paid out, the claims of the credit supplier in terms of a fee for the provision of the credit and in terms of the first credit repayment instalment (or subsequent instalments) will to a certain extent be offset against that amount, so that the amounts thus offset are never in reality paid out to the consumer, or to his account, and remain at the creditor’s disposal throughout? Does the inclusion of those amounts which are in reality not paid out affect the amount of the APR calculated?

            Regardless of the answer to the preceding questions:

                  5.

                  In the assessment of whether the above agreed compensation is disproportionate within the meaning of point 1(e) of the Annex to the Directive on Unfair Terms, is it necessary to evaluate the cumulative effect of all the penalty clauses, as concluded, regardless of whether the creditor actually insists that they be satisfied in full and regardless of whether some of them may from the point of view of the rules of national law be considered to have been concluded invalidly, or is it necessary to take into consideration only the total amount of the penalties actually demanded and capable of being demanded?

                  6.

                  In the event that the contractual penalties are found to be abusive, is it necessary to disapply all of those partial penalties which, only when considered together, led the court to conclude that the amount of compensation was disproportionate within the meaning of point 1(e) of the Annex to the Directive on Unfair Terms, or only some of them (and in that case by what criteria is this to be judged)?

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

         (2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case T-337/04: Action brought on 29 July 2004 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas against the Council of the European Union and the European Central Bank

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/35

         Action brought on 29 July 2004 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas against the Council of the European Union and the European Central Bank
   (Case T-337/04)
   (2004/C 273/67)
   Language of the Case: Greek
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 2004 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas, resident in Thessaloniki, Greece, represented by Dimitrios Papafilippou, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the two Community institutions jointly and severally to pay to him (i) as compensation for material damage, the sum which will result from the relevant calculations of the salary for the equivalent post at the ECB, over the period from April 2001 until three months after delivery of the Court of First Instance's judgment if it is favourable for the applicant, less his income as a lawyer in the corresponding period, and (ii) the sum of EUR 90 000 for non-material damage, together with legal interest from the bringing of the action;

               —

               order the two Community institutions to pay his court and other costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant previously brought an action before the Court of First Instance (Case T-3/00) (1) for annulment of the refusal of the Council and the European Central Bank to allow him access to the ‘Basle/Nyborg’ Agreement on the reinforcement of the European Monetary System. The applicant argued that he needed the agreement in order to complete the doctoral thesis that he was writing.
   In his present action, the applicant pleads that the refusal of the Council and the European Central Bank to allow him access was unlawful for the same reasons as those pleaded by him in the previous action. In addition he pleads that, by reason of the refusal, he has been unable up until now to complete his doctoral thesis. He submits that as the possessor of a doctoral thesis specialising in economic and monetary law he would succeed in obtaining a job as a lawyer in an international body or organisation. He thus considers that he has suffered material damage equal to the difference between (i) the salary that he would have received from such a job in the period from April 2001 — when he would have completed his doctoral thesis and found such a job — until three months after delivery of the Court of First Instance's judgment and (ii) his past and future earnings over the same period working as a lawyer in Greece. By his action he thus seeks compensation for that material loss and the award of damages for non-material harm.

      (1)  OJ C 122, 29.4.2000, p. 35.


title: Case T-166/02: Action brought on 28 May 2002 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 180/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
Action brought on 28 May 2002 by José Pedro Pessoa e                     Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Etablissements
Costa against Commission of the European Communities                     Toulorge against European Parliament and Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                         (Case T-166/02)
                                                                                (Case T-167/02)
                         (2002/C 180/55)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/56)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                  (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 May 2002 by José Pedro Pessoa
e Costa, residing in Lisbon, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 30 May 2002
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001 to             by Etablissements Toulorge, whose registered office is at
      bring disciplinary proceedings against him;                        Bricquebec (France), represented by Denis Waelbroek and Dirk
                                                                         Brinckman, lawyers.
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority to reject
      the request submitted on 6 July 2001 by the Director of
      the EMCDDA to transfer him to the EMCDDA, pursuant
      to Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —    annul Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                              and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council
                                                                              Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/
                                                                              357/EEC;
The applicant requested, upon returning from a period of
unpaid leave, to be transferred to the European Monitoring               —    declare the non-contractual liability of the Community,
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). The transfer                    in the body of the Council and the European Parliament
was refused by the Commission because disciplinary proceed-                   and order the defendants to make good all the damage
ings had been instituted against the applicant following charges              suffered by the applicant as a consequence of that
laid by the Portuguese authorities.                                           directive;
In support of his application, the applicant claims that                 —    order the parties to produce, within a reasonable period
the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him                 after the Court of First Instance delivers its decision, exact
infringes the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                      figures to quantify the damage which the parties have
Regulations. Furthermore, the applicant pleads breach of the                  agreed or, in the absence of such agreement, order the
principle that innocence must be presumed and infringement                    parties to transmit to the Court of First Instance, within
of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, the rights of the defence             the same period, additional claims containing such exact
and the findings of the Heads of Administration No 103 J/77.                  figures;
The applicant claims, finally that the decision refusing to              —    order interest to be paid at an annual rate of 8 % (or any
transfer him to the EMCDDA is unlawful inasmuch as it is                      other appropriate rate which the Court may decide) with
based on a decision which is itself unlawful, namely the                      effect from the date of the decision of the Court finding
decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings.                                the Community liable until actual payment is made;
                                                                         —    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-392/17: Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/36

         Action brought on 14 June 2017 — TE v Commission
   (Case T-392/17)
   (2017/C 293/45)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: TE (represented by: J. Bartončík, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision to open an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of a basic principle of EU law — the principle of subsidiarity.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle ne bis in idem.


title: Case T-256/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Ezz and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Obligation to state reasons — Error of fact — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Ezz and Others v Council
   (Case T-256/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Error of fact - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business))
   2014/C 102/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt); Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed (London, United Kingdom); Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (London); and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza) (represented: initially by M. Lester, Barrister, and J. Binns, Solicitor, and subsequently by J. Binns, J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and I. Burton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, M. Konstantinidis and A. Bordes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Ms Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Ms Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Ms Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case C-492/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2006 — Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele v Elilombarda s.r.l.

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2006 — Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele v Elilombarda s.r.l.
   (Case C-492/06)
   (2007/C 20/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele

      Defendant: Elilombarda s.r.l.
   Question referred
   Where a consortium without legal personality has participated as such in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract, is Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility under national law for an individual member of that consortium to bring an action against the decision awarding the contract?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.


title: Case C-546/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8471 and 8518 — Loudspeakers reproducing sound by transforming an electromagnetic signal into sound waves, which can be connected only to a computer and marketed separately)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/10

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl
   (Case C-546/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8471 and 8518 - Loudspeakers reproducing sound by transforming an electromagnetic signal into sound waves, which can be connected only to a computer and marketed separately))
   (2015/C 007/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane

      Defendant: ADL American Dataline Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are connected to a computer equipped with the operating system ‘MAC OS 9’ or a more advanced system, must be classified as loudspeakers in subheading 8518 22 90 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case T-305/17: Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/47

         Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Red Bull v EUIPO (Representation of a parallelogram composed of two fields in different colours)
   (Case T-305/17)
   (2017/C 231/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a parallelogram composed of 2 fields in different colours) — Application for registration No 14 326 508

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2017 in Case R 2582/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-38/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Ancona): Ministero delle Finanze v. Foods Import Srl (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Fish of the Molva molva kind)

text:
No C 54/2             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between the Queen                                          (Fifth Chamber)
and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte:
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
British Telecommunications pic — on the interpretation
of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June                 1990        in Case C-3/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
on     the   establishment    of    the  internal   market    for      the Landgericht Dortmund ): Reisebiiro Broede v. Gerd
telecommunications services through the implementation                                                Sandker ( 1 )
of open network provision ( OJ No L 192, 24 . 7. 1990,
p. 1 ) and on the interpretation and validity of Council               (Freedom to provide services — Judicial recovery of debts
Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of                     — Authorization — Article 59 of the EC Treaty)
open network provision to leased lines ( OJ No L 165 ,                                              ( 97/C 54/03 )
19 . 6 . 1992 , p. 27 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini and J. C.                                (Language of the case: German)
Moitinho de Almeida ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
Kakouris, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G.                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Tesauro, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                       published in the European Court Reports)
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 In Case C-3/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty by the Landgericht ( Regional Court )
                                                                       Dortmund ( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court between Reisebiiro
                                                                       Broede and Gerd Sandker on the interpretation of the
1 . Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the                  provisions of the EC Treaty relating to freedom to provide
     application of open network provision to leased lines             services, in particular Article 59 — the Court ( Fifth
     applies to telecomunications organizations within the             Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     meaning of Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 90/387/            President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward
     EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the                   ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fenelly,
     internal market for telecommunications services
                                                                       Advocate-General ; H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator,
     through the implementation of open network                        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
    provision. Inter alia, the two undertakings to which a             1996 , in which it has ruled :
     Member State has reserved, otherwise than according
     to objective, proportional and non-discriminatory
     criteria, the operation of international and in                   Article 59 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a national
    particular intra- Community telecommunications lines               rule which prohibits an undertaking established in another
     and likewise the undertaking to which a Member State              Member State from securing judicial recovery of debts
     has reserved, on the same terms, the operation of a               owed to others on the ground that the exercise of that
    public telecommunications network in part of its                   activity in a professional capacity is reserved to the legal
     territory constitute telecommunications organizations             profession.
     within the meaning of that provision. A Member State
     is entitled to impose the obligations laid down in                (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
    Article 7 of Directive 92/44/EEC on only some
     telecommunications          organizations,     since    the
     imposition of those obligations is sufficient to make
    available to users throughout the national territory a
     minimum number of leased lines complying with the
    specifications laid down by that Directive. In                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    particular, a Member State is entitled to impose the                                          ( First Chamber)
     obligations laid down in that provision on only those
     telecommunications organizations which are the                                          of 12 December 1996
    principal operators of telecommuncations lines in each             in Case C-38/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     of the geographical areas comprising its territory.               the Corte d'Appello di Ancona ): Ministero delle Finanze v.
                                                                                Foods Import Srl ( ] )
                                                                       (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Fish of
                                                                                the Molva molva kind)
2 . Examination of the questions referred for a
    preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor capable of                                           ( 97/C 54/04 )
    affecting the validity of Directive 92/44/EEC.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-38/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty by the Corte d'Appello di Ancona, for a
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 54/3
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Ministero delle Finanze and Foods Import                                         ( Fifth Chamber )
Sri on the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common                                               of 12 December 1996
organization of the market in fishery products ( OJ No
L 379, 31 . 12 . 1981 , p. 1 ), and of Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council     in Joined Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 , C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the                  60/95 , C-81 /95 , C-92/95 and C-148/95 (reference for a
post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties             preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova ): Olasagasti
                                                                      and C. Sri and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
which have not been required of the person liable for
payment on goods entered for a customs procedure                                                 dello Stato (M
involving the obligation to pay such duties ( OJ No L 197,            (Regulation (EEC) No 3835/90 — Regulation (EEC)
3 . 8 . 1979, p. 1 ), the Court composed of: L. Sevon,                No 3587/91 — Regulation (EEC) No 3416/91 — Act of
President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and M.               Accession of Spain and Portugal — Article 5(1 ) and (2) of
Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly,                     Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC)
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,              No 1750/90 — Regulation (EEC) No 2164/91 —
has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 in which it                  Customs duties — Tariff preferences — Agricultural
rules :
                                                                      products — Post-clearance recovery — Binding
                                                                                information — Tuna in olive oil)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/05 )
1 . Tariff headings 03.02 A I (b) and 03.02 A II (a) set
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     out in Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common
     organization of the market in fishery products are to
     be interpreted as meaning that the list of species                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     whose scientific names are indicated in brackets is                        published in the European Court Reports)
     exhaustive and does not include ling, whose scientific
     name is Molva molva, so that imports of this fish may
     not be exempt from customs duties.                                In Joined Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 , C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C
                                                                       60/95 , C-81 /95 , C-92/95 and C-148/95 : reference by the
                                                                      Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa ) for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                       court between Olasagasti & C. Sri ( C-47/95 ), Comarcon
2 . In order to determine whether the error committed by               SNC ( C-48/95 ), Ghezzi Alimentari Sri ( C-49/95 ), Fredo Sri
     the competent authorities 'could not reasonably have              ( C-50/95 ), Cateringros Sri ( C-60/95 ), Intercod Sri ( C-81 /
     been detected by the person liable ' within the meaning           95 ), Nuova Castelli SpA ( C-92/95 ), Igino Mazzola SpA
     of Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/             ( C-148/95 ) and Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
     79 of 24 July 1979, on the post-clearance recovery of             — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission
     import duties or export duties which have not been                Regulation ( EEC ) No 3416/91 of 25 November 1991 on
     required of the person liable for payment on goods                certain residual duties applicable in 1991 in the
                                                                       framework of the successive reduction in accordance with
     entered for a customs procedure involving the
     obligation to pay such duties, account must be taken,             the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal ( OJ No L 324,
     in particular, of the nature of the error, the                    26 . 11 . 1991 , p. 11 ), and of Article 5 of Council
     professional experience of the trader concerned and               Regulation ( EEC ) No 1679/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
     the degree of care which he exercised. The relevant               post-clearance recovery of imports duties which have not
     factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the           been required of the person liable for payment on goods
     nature of the error include the possibility that the              entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
      terminology used may have caused confusion, the fact             to pay such duties ( OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p. 1 — the
      that a change of rule was not apparent and the time               Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of J. C. Moitinho de
      taken by the competent authorities themselves to                 Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O.
      realize that such a change had been made. It is for the           Edward ( Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges ,
      national court to determine, on the basis of that                 Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, L. Hewlett, Administrator,
      interpretation, whether or not the error which led to             for the Registrar gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 ,
      duties not being collected was detectable by the person           the operative part of which is as follows :
      liable.
                                                                        1 . The suspension of the residual customs duties
                                                                            applicable to imports from Spain into the Community
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .                                          of Ten in accordance with Article 75 (1 ) of the Act of
                                                                            Accession, provided for in Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 3416/91 on certain residual
                                                                            duties applicable in 1991 in the framework of the
                                                                            successive reduction in accordance with the Act of
                                                                            Accession of Spain and Portugal for the agricultual


title: Case C-167/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam by order of 5 February 2001 in the case of Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam and Inspire Art Ltd

text:
14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 200/41
2.    Are the provisions of Article 9 of the Staff Regulations                meaning that the said Articles 43 and 48 do not affect
      of the European Communities (Article 2 of Council                       the applicability of the Netherlands rules laid down in
      Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 Febru-                  that law, on the ground that the provisions in question
      ary 1968) and those contained in Annex II to the Staff                  are justified for the reasons stated by the Netherlands
      Regulations concerning the Staff Committee, which also                  legislature?
      represents the interests of local staff of the Communities,
      to be interpreted as laying down exhaustive rules on
      collective employment law and the powers of co-decision
      of local staff and thus as precluding the application of the
      law on labour relations in the workplace laid down in the
      Austrian Labour Constitution Act to local staff serving in
      the Vienna representation of the Commission of the                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
      European Communities?                                              Nederlanden by decision of 11 April 2001 in the case of
                                                                            Bosal Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(1) OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-168/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/76)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by decision of 11 April 2001 by
                                                                         the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
                                                                         Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kantongerecht                  19 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bosal
te Amsterdam by order of 5 February 2001 in the case of                  Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam                         questions:
                       and Inspire Art Ltd                               1.   Does Article 52 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction
                                                                              with Article 58 thereof (now, following amendment,
                          (Case C-167/01)                                     Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48
                                                                              thereof), or any other rule of EC law, preclude a Member
                                                                              State from granting a parent company subject to tax in
                         (2001/C 200/75)                                      that Member State a deduction on costs relating to a
                                                                              holding owned by it only if the relevant subsidiary
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        company makes profits which are subject to tax in
European Communities by order of 5 February 2001 by the                       the Member State in which the parent company is
Kantongerecht te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Cantonal Court),                        established?
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kamer van Koophandel             2.   Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1
en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam and Inspire Art Ltd on the                        if, where the subsidiary company is subject to tax based
following questions:                                                          on its profits in the Member State concerned but the
                                                                              parent company is not, the relevant Member State takes
1.    Is (the new) Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 of               no account of the abovementioned costs in levying tax
      the Treaty establishing the European Community to be                    on the subsidiary company?
      interpreted as precluding the Netherlands, pursuant to
      the Wet op de formeel buitenlandse vennootschappen of
      17 December 1997, from attaching additional conditions,
      such as those laid down in Articles 2 to 5 of that law, to
      the establishment in the Netherlands of a branch of a
      company which has been set up in the United Kingdom
      with the sole aim of securing the advantages which that            Appeal brought on 19 April 2001 by Compañı́a Interna-
      offers compared to incorporation under Netherlands law,            cional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) against the
      given that Netherlands law imposes stricter rules than             judgment delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Court of
      those applying in the United Kingdom with regard to the            First Instance of the European Communities (Second
      setting-up of companies and payment for shares, and                Chamber) in Case T-186/98 between Compañı́a Interna-
      given that the Netherlands law infers that aim from the            cional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) and the
      fact that the company carries on its activities entirely or                 Commission of the European Communities
      almost entirely in the Netherlands and, furthermore, does
      not have any real connection with the State in which the                                 (Case C-170/01 P)
      law under which it was formed applies?
2.    If, on a proper construction of those articles of the Treaty,                             (2001/C 200/77)
      it is held that the provisions of the Wet op de formeel
      buitenlandse vennootschappen are incompatible with                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
      them, must Article 46 of the Treaty be interpreted as              by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities


title: Case T-382/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Izar Construcciones Navales SA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 21/42                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          24.1.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  incompatible with the common market merely because it
                                                                                constitutes aid in addition to that authorised for the
                                                                                Spanish shipyards by the aforementioned 1997 decision.
The applicant in this case, a subsidiary of the Spanish public             Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
holding headed by the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones                  proportionality and of the duty to state reasons for acts, in
Industriales (SEPI), which owns all the Spanish shipyards                  particular as regards, in the present case, the existence of State
belonging to the State, challenges the decision by which the               aid.
defendant institution has initiated the formal investigation
procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to
three cases of alleged aid consisting in the grant by SEPI to the          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
civil shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises engines                down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
factory of loans amounting to EUR 194.4 million, a capital                     Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
injection from SEPI to AESA (Astilleros Españoles SA) of                   (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to
EUR 252.4 million and compensation for losses paid by SEPI                     certain shipyards under restructuring, OJ 1997 L 148 , p. 1.
to the shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises
engines factory amounting to EUR 68.2 million. The same
decision also questions, according to the applicant, whether
certain aid authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation
to which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
additional aid, is compatible with Community law.
                                                                           Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Izar Construc-
                                                                           ciones Navales SA against Commission of the European
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:                                                      Communities
                                                                                (Case T-382/03)
—     Infringement of Article 88 of the EC Treaty and of
      Regulations 659/1999 (1) and 1013/1997 (2), inasmuch
      as the contested decision, using as its legal basis Article 16                                 (2004/C 21/86)
      of Regulation No 659/1999, states that, were the aid
      authorised in 1997 to be considered illegal, steps must                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
      be taken for its recovery. The applicant submits in that
      respect that the Commission has unlawfully failed to
      apply to the aid in issue the procedure for existing aid
      provided for by Article 88(1) and Article 17 et seq of
      Regulation No 659/1999.                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 November 2003 by Izar
                                                                           Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at
—     Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must            Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro
      be protected, inasmuch as the contested decision does                Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.
      not meet the applicant’s expectations regarding the
      legality and irrevocability of the aid authorised in 1997.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Breach of the principle of legal certainty as a result of            —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
      the Commission’s having acted out of time and the                          decision of the Commission of 27 July 2003 on the
      retrospective application of a provision to a situation                    suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and
      arising prior to its entry into force. In the view of the
      applicant, the power to recover the 1997 aid could only
      have been exercised within the period prescribed therefor,           —     Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR
      that is to say before October 1999. That is so because                     in these proceedings.
      exercise of the abovementioned power is contingent on
      the result of the monitoring programmes provided for by
      Regulation No 1013/1997 and the 1997 decision, which
      came to an end on the abovementioned date.                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Manifest error of law, inasmuch as the contested decision            The applicant in this case, the same as that in Case T-381/03
      maintains that the alleged aid concerned thereby is                  IZAR, challenges the decision of the defendant by which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/43
—     initiated the formal investigation procedure under                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to three cases
      of alleged aid consisting in an increase of capital of EUR
      736 million, with an issue premium of EUR 586 million,
      and of two subsequent injections of EUR 105 million and              The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation
      EUR 50 million respectively by way of issue premia;                  1480/2003 of 11 August 2003 imposing a definitive
                                                                           countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional
—     rejects the arguments of the Kingdom of Spain, based on              duty imposed on imports of certain electronic microcircuits
      Article 296 of the EC Treaty, thus ruling out the specific           known as DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) orig-
      procedures provided for by Article 198(1) and (2);                   inating in the Republic of Korea (1).
—     questions, according to the applicant, whether certain aid
      authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation to
                                                                           With its first two pleas, the applicant contests the finding that
      which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
                                                                           it failed to cooperate. According to the applicant, the defendant
      additional aid, is compatible with Community law.
                                                                           disregarded the Arthur Andersen report determining the
                                                                           applicant’s liquidation value and the affidavit submitted by
                                                                           Citibank. The applicant invokes in that regard a violation of
The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied upon              Article 28 of Council Regulation 2026/97 (2), Articles 12 and
in Case T-381/03 IZAR.                                                     22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
                                                                           Measures, the principle of proportionality and a manifest error
                                                                           of assessment.
In particular, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 88,
296 and 298 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as, since the Kingdom
of Spain had previously and expressly invoked the exception
provided for in Article 296(1)(b) of the Treaty, the Commission            The applicant furthermore submits that the findings of the
had power to initiate not the procedure under Article 88(2)                defendant that several specific measures conferred a benefit on
but only certain of the specific procedures under Article 298.             the applicant infringe Article 2 of Regulation 2026/97,
                                                                           Article 1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
                                                                           Countervailing Measures and amount to a manifest error of
                                                                           assessment of the relevant facts.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that the findings that the KDB
                                                                           debenture programme (3) was specific to the applicant infringe
Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semicon-                       Article 3 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 1.2 and 2 of the
  ductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union                    WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
                                                                           and amount to a manifest error of assessment of the relevant
                                                                           facts.
                         (Case T-383/03)
                          (2004/C 21/87)
                                                                           The applicant continues by submitting that in calculating the
                                                                           amount of the benefit of several specific measures, the
                                                                           defendant infringed Articles 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                           2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings, Articles 14, 22
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 and annex I(j) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Communities on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor                     Countervailing Measures. In this respect, the applicant also
Inc., Kyoungi-Do, Korea represented by Marco Bronckers, Yves               claims that the defendant committed a manifest error of
Van Gerven, Axel Gutermuth and Axel Desmedt lawyers with                   assessment and infringed Article 253 EC.
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant also contests the defendant’s findings that
                                                                           subsidised imports from the Republic of Korea caused material
                                                                           injury to the Community’s industry of DRAM producers.
—     declare the Definitive Regulation annulled in its entirety,          According to the applicant, these findings infringe Articles 1,
      or at least partially, in so far as it concerns imports into         8, 11 and 15 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 15, 19 and 22
      the European Community of products manufactured by                   of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
      Hynix Semiconductor Inc.;                                            Measures and amount to manifest errors of assessment. The
                                                                           applicant also claims that the defendant committed a violation
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.               of Article 253 EC in this regard.


title: Case C-150/06 P: Appeal brought on  17 March 2006  by Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on  14 December 2005  in Case T-369/03: Arizona Chemical B.V, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Resinall Europe BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica S.A v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Finland

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/7

         Appeal brought on 17 March 2006 by Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03: Arizona Chemical B.V, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Resinall Europe BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica S.A v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Finland
   (Case C-150/06 P)
   (2006/C 121/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Arizona Chemical BV, Eastman Belgium BVBA, Cray Valley Iberica, SA (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Finland, Resinall Europe BVBA
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 in Case T-369/03;

               —

               declare the Applicants' requests in Case T-369/03 admissible;

               —

               rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to bear all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants submit that the judgements of the Court of First Instance should be set aside for the following reasons:

               1)

               Inconsistency in reasoning and misapplication of the legal test for admissibility applicable to the addressee of a binding act producing legal effects.
               The applicants submit that the Court of First Instance (hereinafter the CFI) erred in law where it did not base its assessment on the fact that the contested decision is a binding act producing legal effects bringing about a distinct change in the applicants' legal position.

               2)

               Misinterpretation of the regulatory framework applicable to the assessment of the applicants' data under directive 67/548/EEC.
               The applicants submit that the CFI erred in law where it considered that the assessment of the applicants' data and the Commission's final decision on the relevance of these data as the basis for declassification is not an administrative process that is subject to challenge.

               3)

               Misinterpretation of the regulatory framework and of the applicants' related rights under directive 67/548/EEC.
               The applicants submit that te CFI erred in law when it concluded that the applicants could not bring a challenge on the grounds that the applicants were seeking to challenge a measure of general application.

               4)

               Violation of the applicants' right to effective judicial protection.
               The applicants submit tha the CFI erred in law when it considered that the applicants may challenge the contested decision at national level.

               5)

               Error in law in concluding that the applicants' action is time-barred.
               The applicants' submit that the action for damages is not time-barred because the starting point for damages is, at the earliest, the 1999 decision of the Commission not to declassify, and, at the latest, the contested decision.


title: Case C-63/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n °4 de Barcelona — Spain) — Axel Walz v Clickair S.A. (Air transport — Montreal Convention — Liability of carriers in respect of checked baggage — Article 22(2) — Limits of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage — Concept of ‘damage’ — Material and non-material damage)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 de Barcelona — Spain) — Axel Walz v Clickair S.A.
   (Case C-63/09) (1)

   (Air transport - Montreal Convention - Liability of carriers in respect of checked baggage - Article 22(2) - Limits of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage - Concept of ‘damage’ - Material and non-material damage)
   2010/C 179/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Axel Walz

      Defendant: Clickair S.A.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 4 (Barcelona) — Interpretation of Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), (Council Decision 2001/539/EC, OJ 2001 L 194, p. 39) — Jurisdiction of the Court — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1) — Air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air — Limit of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage — Material and non-material damage

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘damage’, which underpins Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, that sets the limit of an air carrier’s liability for the damage resulting, inter alia, from the loss of baggage, must be interpreted as including both material and non-material damage.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Joint Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06) v Land Baden-Württemberg and Peter Funk (C-343/06) Stadt Chemnitz (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol — New licence issued in another Member State — Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State — Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)) — Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06) v Land Baden-Württemberg and Peter Funk (C-343/06) Stadt Chemnitz
   (Joint Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06) (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of a licence in one Member State for use of narcotic drugs or alcohol - New licence issued in another Member State - Refusal to recognise right to drive in the first Member State - Residence not in accordance with Directive 91/439/EEC)
   (2008/C 209/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Arthur Wiedemann (C-329/06), Peter Funk (C-343/06)

      Defendants: Land Baden-Württemberg (C-329/06), Stadt Chemnitz (C-343/06)
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Intepretation of Articles 1(2), 7(1)(a) and 8(2) and (4), and Annex III, of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence fraudulently obtained in another Member State by a holder who was the subject of an administrative decision to withdraw his national driving licence in his State of residence on grounds of the use of drugs — Abuse of rights
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.
               In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.

               2)

               It is contrary to Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, for a Member State bound, in accordance with that directive, to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State, to suspend that right temporarily while the latter Member State investigates the procedure followed in the issuing of that licence. In contrast, in that same context, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to decide to suspend that right if it is clear from entries in that licence or from other incontestable information supplied by that other Member State that the condition of residence imposed in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive was not satisfied at the moment when that licence was issued.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

      OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-393/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2006 — Ing. Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH v Fernwärme Wien GmbH

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 September 2006 — Ing. Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH v Fernwärme Wien GmbH
   (Case C-393/06)
   (2006/C 310/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ing. Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH

      Defendant: Fernwärme Wien GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1) (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1) (‘Directive 2004/17/EC’) be interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity which pursues one of the sectoral activities referred to in Article 3 of that directive also falls within the scope of that directive in relation to an activity pursued in parallel under competitive conditions?

               2.

               In the event that this is the case only in respect of contracting authorities: must an undertaking such as Fernwärme Wien GmbH. be characterised as a body governed by public law within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC or Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (2) (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) (‘Directive 2004/18/EC’) if it provides district heating in a given area without any real competition, or must the market for domestic heating, which also includes energy sources such as gas, oil, coal etc., be taken into account?

               3.

               Must an activity pursued under competitive conditions by a company which also pursues activities of a non-industrial or non-commercial nature be included within the scope of Directive 2004/17/EC or Directive 2004/18/EC if, through effective precautions such as separate balance sheets and accounts, cross-financing of the activities pursued under competitive conditions can be excluded?

      (1)  OJ L, 134, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L, 134, p. 114.


               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/1

         (2007/C 297/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 283, 24.11.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 269, 10.11.2007

      OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

      OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

      OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

      OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case F-49/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 March 2012 — BE v Commission

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 March 2012 — BE v Commission
   (Case F-49/11) (1)

   2013/C 46/68
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 36.


title: Case C-97/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — SMK kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 52(c) and 55 — Determination of the place of supply of services — Recipient of the service identified for value added tax purposes in several Member States — Dispatch or transport out of the Member State in which the service has been physically carried out)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — SMK kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal
   (Case C-97/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 52(c) and 55 - Determination of the place of supply of services - Recipient of the service identified for value added tax purposes in several Member States - Dispatch or transport out of the Member State in which the service has been physically carried out))
   (2015/C 213/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SMK kft

      Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 55 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the version in force until 1 January 2010, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the recipient of the supplies of services was identified for VAT purposes both in the Member State in which the services were physically carried out and in another Member State, and later only in the other Member State, and the tangible movable property to which those services related was dispatched or transported out of the Member State in which the services were physically carried out not following the supplies of services but following the later sale of the goods.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-398/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Personal data — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 6(1)(e) — Data subject to disclosure in the companies register — First Directive 68/151/EEC — Article 3 — Winding-up of the company concerned — Restriction of access to that data by third parties)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni
   (Case C-398/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Personal data - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 6(1)(e) - Data subject to disclosure in the companies register - First Directive 68/151/EEC - Article 3 - Winding-up of the company concerned - Restriction of access to that data by third parties))
   (2017/C 144/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce

      Defendant: Salvatore Manni

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(1)(e), Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, as amended by Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, as EU law currently stands, it is for the Member States to determine whether the natural persons referred to in Article 2(1)(d) and (j) of that directive may apply to the authority responsible for keeping, respectively, the central register, commercial register or companies register to determine, on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, if it is exceptionally justified, on compelling legitimate grounds relating to their particular situation, to limit, on the expiry of a sufficiently long period after the dissolution of the company concerned, access to personal data relating to them, entered in that register, to third parties who can demonstrate a specific interest in consulting that data.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-218/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht by order of that court of 10 April 2001 in the case of Henkel KGaA

text:
C 227/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.8.2001
6.    Prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC)                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of                   Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo Conten-
      the Council of 16 November 2000, which amended                       cioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda, by
      Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, was                    order of 3 April 2001 in the case of Isabel Parras Medina
      there any provision of Community law which provided                  and Adelina Paras Medina v Conséjeria de Agricultura de
      for the suspension of the period of three years for post-                  la Junta, de Comunidades de Castilla-La-Mancha
      clearance recovery as soon as an appeal is lodged?
                                                                                (Case C-208/01)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
    post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which                                 (2001/C 227/16)
    have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods
    entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).                                     European Communities by order of 3 April 2001 by the
(2) Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament                Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo
    and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
                                                                           Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda
    Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Cus-
    toms Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).                                      (Second section of the Administrative-law Chamber of the
                                                                           High Court of Justice, Castilla-La-Mancha) which was received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Paras Medina v
                                                                           Conséjeria de Agricultura de la Junta de Comunidades de
                                                                           Castilla-La-Mancha on the following questions:
                                                                           1.    Must the scope of the concept of force majeure used in
                                                                                Article 12 of Regulation No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                         altered so as to equate to that of unforeseen and
richtshof by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the                         compelling circumstances, as described in this decision,
case of Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for                        of such a kind that negligence as regards compliance with
                 Education, Science and Culture                                  the time-limit in question would not be regarded as such?
                                                                           2.    Are the consequences provided for in the abovemen-
                         (Case C-204/01)                                         tioned Article 12 in the nature of a sanction or a penalty
                                                                                and, if that is the a case, does that fact contribute to the
                                                                                need to alter the scope of the said concept of force majeure?
                         (2001/C 227/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof of 25 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
16 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for Education,
Science and Culture on the following question:                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
                                                                           tentgericht by order of that court of 10 April 2001 in the
                                                                                case of Henkel KGaA
Are Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC (1) of 25 July
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                                            (Case C-218/01)
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to                                     (2001/C 227/17)
provide services, as amended by the Act of Accession, Official
Journal C 241 of 29 August 1994; p. 218, Article 12 EC and                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Article 39 EC, and Article 1; read in conjunction with Article 3           European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
and Article 9, of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate            (Federal Patents Court) of 10 April 2001 which was received
the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                 at the Court Registry on 29 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  in the case of Henkel KGaA on the following questions on the
qualifications, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under          interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council
which admission to a training course in dentistry covered by               Directive 89/104/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC requires a degree in                   the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
medicine obtained at an Austrian university?                               1989 L 40, p. 1):
                                                                           1.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which
(1) OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.                                                         consist of the packaging of goods which are normally
(2) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.                                                         traded in packaged form (such as liquids, for example) is
                                                                                the packaging of the goods to be equated with the shape
                                                                                of the goods for the purpose of trade mark law in such a
                                                                                way that
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/11
      (a)   the packaging of the goods is to be regarded as the         —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
            shape of the goods for the purpose of Article 3(1)(e)
            of the directive; and
      (b) the packaging of the goods may serve to designate
            the (external) quality of the packaged goods for the        Pleas in law and main arguments
            purpose of Article 3(1)(c) of the directive?
2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which                —     Failure correctly to transpose Article 7(5) of Directive
      consist of the packaging of goods which are normally                    97/33/EC: under the last two sentences of the second
      traded in packaged form does the establishment of                       subparagraph of Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33, com-
      distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b)             pliance with the cost accounting system must be verified.
      of the directive turn on whether or not the average                     The Directive states that a statement concerning com-
      consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reason-                   pliance must, in addition, be published annually. Those
      ably observant and circumspect, is able to recognise the                obligations are not included in the Belgian legislation.
      characteristic features of the three-dimensional trade
      mark applied for, which differ from the norm or custom
      in the sector and are therefore decisive as regards its           —     Failure correctly to transpose Article 9(3) of Directive
      capability of serving as an indication of origin, even                  97/33/EC: the provisions communicated by the Belgian
      without conducting an analytical or comparative examin-                 authorities as implementing measures, namely the fifth
      ation or without paying particular attention?                           subparagraph of Article 109B(4) of the Law of 21 March
                                                                              1991 and Articles 8 and 12 of a decree of 20 April 1999,
3.    Can the necessary assessment of distinctive character be                only partially cover the obligations imposed by the
      made solely on the basis of the relevant national trade                 Directive, since Article 109B(4) concerns solely the
      perceptions without further official investigations being               obligation imposed by the Belgian legislature on organis-
      necessary to establish whether and to what extent ident-                ations with ‘significant [market] power’ to publish a
      ical or comparable trade marks have been registered or                  reference offer which may be used as a basis for
      refused registration in other Member States of the Euro-                subsequent negotiations; it is that reference offer which
      pean Union?                                                             may be changed by the Institute, a possibility which
                                                                              clearly cannot be construed as a right of intervention in
                                                                              favour of that institute in any negotiation or discussion
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.                                               concerning an interconnection agreement. Nor do the
                                                                              provisions of the Decree of 20 April 1999 provide for
                                                                              the regulatory authorities to be able to intervene in the
                                                                              negotiations ‘on their own initiative at any time’.
                                                                        —     Failure correctly to transpose Article 14(1) and (2): in
                                                                              respect of the information relating to the reference
Action brought on 5 June 2001 by the Commission of the                        interconnection offer, which is identified in Article 7(3)
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                          of the Directive, and the main elements of the national
                                                                              numbering plans referred to in Article 12(4) of the
                                                                              Directive, the Belgian authorities have opted for a means
                         (Case C-221/01)
                                                                              of communication in accordance with Article 14(2)
                                                                              of the Directive, whereas Article 7(3) is covered by
                         (2001/C 227/18)                                      Article 14(1) which requires easy access to the infor-
                                                                              mation and therefore access which is more direct than
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before                   that by individual request. In respect of the information
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June                    referred to in Article 9(2) of the Directive (general
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           conditions of interconnection) and the information
represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent, with an address                  referred to in Article 10 of the Directive, the Belgian
for service in Luxembourg.                                                    legislation does not provide for any publication or
                                                                              communication in any form whatever. Finally, in respect
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                        of the information referred to in Article 9(3) of the
the Court should:                                                             Directive, the Belgian legislation still does not provide for
                                                                              access at the request of interested parties.
—     Declare, pursuant to Article 226 EC, that by failing to
      adopt all the laws, regulations or administrative pro-
      visions necessary to comply with Directive 97/33/EC of
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June
      1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with                (1) OJ L 199 of 26.07.1997, p. 32.
      regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability
      through application of the principles of Open Network
      Provision (ONP) (1), in particular with Articles 7(5), 9(3)
      and 14(1) and (2) thereof, Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive; and


title: Case C-72/16: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Prospector Offshore Drilling SA and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Prospector Offshore Drilling SA and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-72/16) (1)

   (2017/C 086/25)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-553/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet v Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Indirect taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 1(2) — Liquid fuel subject to excise duty — Sales tax — Concept of ‘specific purpose’ — Predetermined allocation — Organisation of public transport within the territory of a city)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet v Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS
   (Case C-553/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 1(2) - Liquid fuel subject to excise duty - Sales tax - Concept of ‘specific purpose’ - Predetermined allocation - Organisation of public transport within the territory of a city))
   (2015/C 138/16)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tallinna ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet

      Defendant: Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as not permitting a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it is levied on retail sales of liquid fuel subject to excise duty, to be regarded as having a specific purpose within the meaning of that provision where that tax is intended to finance the organisation of public transport within the territory of the authority imposing the tax and where that authority is required to undertake and finance such transport irrespective of the existence of that tax, even if the revenue from that tax has been used solely for the purpose of performing that activity. The provision in question must therefore be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings instituting such a tax on retail sales of liquid fuel subject to excise duty.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case T-1/13: Action brought on 4 January 2013 — Advance Magazine Publishers/OHIM — Montres Tudor (GLAMOUR)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/18

         Action brought on 4 January 2013 — Advance Magazine Publishers/OHIM — Montres Tudor (GLAMOUR)
   (Case T-1/13)
   2013/C 86/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. Raab, H. Lauf and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Montres Tudor SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Fully set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 October 2012, appeal no. R 0231/2012-2;

               —

               award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GLAMOUR’ Community trade mark application No 9 380 916

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration with effect in the Community, ‘TUDOR GLAMOUR’ for goods in class 14

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.