title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn by order of that court of 30 November 1994 in the case of Ayse Süzen v. Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, joined party: Lefarth GmbH (Case C-13/95)

text:
No C 54/12           ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
down in Article 15 of the Directive with regard to alcoholic                — Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 ( l )
beverages of less than 10 degrees strength.                                     introducing Community measures for the control of
                                                                                avian influenza, and
(!) OJ No L 298 , 7. 10. 1989, p. 23 .
                                                                            — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
                                                                                down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                                fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
                                                                                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) (a ) (i ) of Directive
                                                                                91/493/EEC (2),
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Bonn by order of that court of 30 November 1994 in the                      and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission,
case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung GmbH                      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      Krankenhausservice, joined party: Lefarth GmbH                        obligations under the penultimate articles of the said
                            Case C-13/95 )                                  directives and under the EC Treaty;
                             ( 95/C 54/19 )
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Bonn (Bonn Labour Court) of 30 November 1994, which
was received at the Court Registry on 1 8 January 1 995, for a         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
preliminary ruling in the case of Ayse Siizen v. Zehnacker             paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Gebaudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, joined                       Article 5 of the EEC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
party: Lefarth GmbH, on the following questions:                       States to whom directives are addressed to adopt the
                                                                       measures necessary for the implementation of such
1 . On the basis of the judgments of the Court of Justice of           directives within the time-limit prescribed therein. The
     14 April 1994 in Case C-392/92 ( J ) and 19 May 1992 in           time-limit in question expired on 1 January 1993 but the
     CaseC-29/91 (2), is Directive 77/1 87/EEC ( 3 ) applicable        Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the necessary
                                                                       measures .
     if an undertaking terminates a contract with an outside
     undertaking in order then to transfer it to another
     outside undertaking?                                              (!) OJ No L 167, 22 . 6.1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       (2 ) OJ No L 187, 7. 7. 1992, p. 41 .
2. Is there a legal transfer within the meaning of the
     directive in the case of the operation described in
     Question 1 even if no tangible or intangible business
     assets are retransferred ?
(M OJ No C 132, 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 4.                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
(2 ) OJ No C 153 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p. 4 .                               Grande Instance de Morlaix by judgment of that court of
(3 ) OJ No L 61 , 18 . 6 . 1992, p. 26 .                               14 December 1994 in the case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast v. 1 .
                                                                       Union Regionale de Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA)
                                                                                and 2. Cooperative du Trieux
                                                                                (Case C-15/95 )
                                                                                95/C 54/21
Action brought on 17 January 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Belgium                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                           (Case C-14/95 )                             Grande Instance (Regional Court), Morlaix, of
                            ( 95/C 54/20 )                             14 December 1994, which was received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 18 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   case of E.A.R.L. de Kerlast against 1 . Union Regionale de
before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on              Cooperatives Agricoles (UNICOPA) and 2. Cooperative du
17 January 1995 by the Commission of the European                      Trieux on the following questions:
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1 . On a proper construction of Article 7 of Council
at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,                    Regulation ( EEC) No 857/84 (*) are producers
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   precluded from entering into joint ventures — which are
                                                                            without legal personality of their own, are not effective
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 against third parties and are unpublicized — in so far as
                                                                            they constitute a disguised form of quota-leasing, or are
1 . declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 such ventures authorized as a necessary structural
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply                 adjustment within the meaning of Article 1 of Council
     with                                                                   Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (2)?


title: Case C-190/09: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/27

      Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
      (Case C-190/09) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/47)
      Language of the case: Greek
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


               25.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/22

         Action brought on 2 September 2010 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-14/10)
   2010/C 320/11
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 September 2010 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

               1.

               to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene);

               2.

               to order the Defendant to pay the costs.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the Norwegian express bus market.

               —

               On 11 August 2006, the Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the City of Oslo has granted aid to AS Oslo Sporveier (now: Ruter AS) and its subsidiary, AS Sporveisbussene (now: Unibuss AS), in violation of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case. It considered that State aid contrary to Articles 61(1) and 49 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had been granted. It further considered that the aid was existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and that it was terminated in 2008. It concluded that no further action was required.

               —

               The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           erred by assessing the aid between 2000 and 2008 as existing aid, given that a new licence to run local bus transport in the City of Oslo was issued at the end of 1999, and infringed its duty to open the formal investigation procedure,

                           —

                           erred by assessing the aid between 1997 and 2000 as existing aid, given the liberalisation of the market for bus transport, and infringed its duty to open the formal investigation procedure, and

                           —

                           failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision.


title: Case T-166/09 P: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Order of referral — Decision which cannot be the object of an appeal — Action for damages — Pre-litigation procedure — Procedural defects — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/36

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-166/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Order of referral - Decision which cannot be the object of an appeal - Action for damages - Pre-litigation procedure - Procedural defects - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 234/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 February 2009 in Case F-70/07 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC 0000, seeking the annulment of that order

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-457/02: criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli (Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Definition of ‘waste’ — Reusable production or consumption residues — Scrap metal)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-457/02: criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli (1)

   (Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Definition of ‘waste’ - Reusable production or consumption residues - Scrap metal)
   (2005/C 6/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-457/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Terni (Italy), made by order of 20 November 2002, received at the Court on 18 December 2002, in the criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The definition of ‘waste’ in the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, cannot be construed as covering exclusively substances or objects intended for, or subjected to, the disposal or recovery operations mentioned in Annexes II A and II B to that directive or in the equivalent lists, or to which their holder intends or is required to subject them.

               2.

               The meaning of ‘waste’ for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, is not to be interpreted as excluding all production or consumption residues which can be or are reused in a cycle of production or consumption, either without prior treatment and without harm to the environment, or after undergoing prior treatment without, however, requiring a recovery operation within the meaning of Annex II B to that directive.

      (1)   OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


C 144/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-425/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-369/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/53)                                                   (2002/C 144/56)
By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-425/99 (Referral for a preliminary      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Akhtar Seyed Abbasy v           register of Case C-369/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank                     Council of the European Union.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-387/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-29/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/54)                                                   (2002/C 144/57)
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-29/00: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-387/00: European Parliament v
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-321/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-393/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 144/55)                                                   (2002/C 144/58)
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-321/00: Federal Republic of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                   from the register of Case C-393/00: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-199/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2014  — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Supply of insurance services for property and persons — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/20

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2014 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission
   (Case T-199/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply of insurance services for property and persons - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests))
   (2015/C 056/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vanbreda Risk & Benefits (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, suspension of the operation of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2014 rejecting the tender that the applicant had submitted following a call for tenders in respect of insurance services for property and persons and awarding the contract to another company.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The decision of the European Commission of 30 January 2014 rejecting the tender that Vanbreda Risk & Benefits had submitted following a call for tenders in respect of insurance services for property and persons and awarding the contract to another company is suspended in respect of the award of lot 1.

               2.

               The effects of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2014 shall be maintained until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present order.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. GZS Gesellschaft für Zahlungssysteme mbH (Case C-147/97)

text:
No C 181 /6             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 6 . 97
     Council Directive 92/43/EEC ( J ) of 21 May 1992 on                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesge
     the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                 richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of
     and flora, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. GZS
     obligations under that Directive,                                                 Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-147/97)
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /12 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                European Communities by the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,                            Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main by order of that court
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid                  of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v.
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit                 GZS Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH on the
expired on 5 June 1992 without the Italian Republic                         following questions :
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application .
(') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 71 .                                   1 . Must Article 90 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that, in so far as a law ratifying the
                                                                                Conventions     of    the   Universal  Postal  Union      of
                                                                                14 December 1989 creates the right for the postal
                                                                                service of Member State A to demand internal rates
                                                                                for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B or to
                                                                                refuse delivery if internal rates are not paid, where the
                                                                                content of the letters is determined by an undertaking
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Tra                        in Member State A and transmitted by electronic data
vail de Liege by judgment of that court of 28 March 1997                        transfer to an undertaking having its seat in Member
in the case of Office National des Pensions ( ONP) v.                           State B in order to be printed out, prepared for
                          Francesco Conti
                                                                                dispatch and handed over to the postal service there,
                          ( Case C-143 /97 )                                    that law constitutes a State measure by which,
                                                                                contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, a measure
                            ( 97/C 181 / 11 )
                                                                                was adopted conflicting with Article 86 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty which does not fall within the exceptions
                                                                                contemplated by Article 90 ( 2 )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du Tra
vail de Liege ( Higher Labour Court, Liege ) of 28 March
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
16 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Of                  2 . Are Articles 30 et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty
fice National des Pensions v. Francesco Conti on the                            to be interpreted as meaning that the power of the
following question:                                                             postal service in Member State A to demand internal
                                                                                rates for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B
                                                                                to addressees resident in Member State A or to refuse
Is the concept of a provision for reduction of benefit in                       to deliver such letters if internal rates are not paid is
Articles 12 ( 2 ), 46 ( 3 ) and 46 ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC )                  contrary to the guarantee of the free movement of
No 1408/71 (') to be interpreted as referring to a                              goods where the content of the letters is determined by
legislative provision of a Member State which, in                               an undertaking in Member State A and transmitted by
providing that the amount of the retirement pension of an                       electronic data transfer to an undertaking having its
employed person who has not completed a total of                                seat in Member State B in order to be printed out,
30 years of employment but has completed at least                               prepared for dispatch and handed over to the postal
25 years is to be increased by a supplement, states that                        service there ?
that supplement is to be equal to the difference between
the amount of the retirement pension which the worker
would have received if he had in fact been employed for
30 years and the total amount of the retirement pensions
which he can claim under a national scheme or a scheme                      3 . In the event that the answer to the above questions
of another Member State ?                                                       submitted for a preliminary ruling discloses an
                                                                                infringement of Community law only because the
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                                postal service of Member State A receives or can
                                                                                enforce, by refusing to deliver mail, payment of
                                                                                internal rates in addition to the postal charges paid in
                                                                                Member State B or in addition to the terminal dues
 ---pagebreak---  14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 181 /7
      collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention                  postal service in Member State A to demand internal
      and/or the CEPT Agreement:                                            rates for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B
                                                                            to addressees resident in Member State A or to refuse
                                                                            to deliver such letters if internal rates are not paid is
                                                                            contrary to the guarantee of the free movement of
      Is the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty                 goods where the content of the letters is determined by
      to be interpreted as meaning that a law of Member                     an undertaking in Member State A and transmitted by
      State A ratifying the Conventions of the Universal                    electronic data transfer to an undertaking having its
      Postal Union of 14 December 1989 is completely                        seat in Member State B in order to be printed out,
      inapplicable or only in so far as payment of internal                 prepared for dispatch and handed over to the postal
      rates in addition to the postal charges paid in Member                service there ?
      State B and/or in addition to the terminal dues
      collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention
      or the CEPT Agreement may be demanded or enforced
      by refusing to deliver the mail in question ?
                                                                        3 . In the event that the answer to the above questions
                                                                            submitted for a preliminary ruling discloses an
                                                                            infringement of community law only because the
                                                                            postal service of Member State A receives or can
                                                                            enforce, by refusing to deliver mail, payment of
                                                                            internal rates in addition to the postal charges paid in
                                                                            Member State B or in addition to the terminal dues
                                                                            collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention
                                                                            and/or the CEPT Agreement:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesge
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of
25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. Citi
                   corp Kartenservice GmbH
                                                                            Is the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty
                         ( Case C-148/97 )                                  to be interpreted as meaning that a law of Member
                                                                            State A ratifying the Conventions of the Universal
                           ( 97/C 181 / 13 )                                Postal Union of 14 December 1989 is completely
                                                                            inapplicable or only in so far as payment of internal
                                                                            rates in addition to the postal charges paid in Member
                                                                            State B and/or in addition to the terminal dues
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention
European Communities by the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher                      or the CEPT Agreement may be demanded or enforced
Regional Court ) Frankfurt am Main by order of that court                   by refusing to deliver the mail in question ?
of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. Citi
corp Kartenservice GmbH on the following questions:
                                                                        4 . Is the answer to Questions 1 , 2 and 3 altered by the
                                                                            fact that the undertaking having its seat in Member
1 . Must Article 90 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as                      State B which is responsible for printing out mailings,
      meaning that, in so far as a law ratifying the                        preparing them for dispatch and delivering them to the
      Conventions     of    the  Universal   Postal    Union   of
                                                                            postal service in that country is linked, as a member of
      14 December 1989 creates the right for the postal                     the same group, to the undertaking in Member State A
      service of Member State A to demand internal rates
                                                                            which determines the content of the mailings ?
      for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B or to
      refuse delivery if internal rates are not paid, where the
      content of the letters is determined by an undertaking
      in Member State A and transmitted by electronic data
      transfer to an undertaking having its seat in Member              5 . Does the answer to Questions 1 , 2 and 3 depend on
      State B in order to be printed out, prepared for                      whether the undertaking having its seat in Member
      dispatch and handed over to the postal service there,                 State B which is responsible for printing out mailings,
      that law constitutes a State measure by which,                        preparing them for dispatch and delivering them to the
      contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, a measure              postal service in that country operates only for the
      was adopted conflicting with Article 86 of the EC                     undertaking in Member State A which determines the
     Treaty which does not fall within the exceptions                       content of the mailings or for a number of principals
     contemplated by Article 90 ( 2 )?                                      of the same type ?
2 . Are Articles 30 et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty
     to be interpreted as meaning that the power of the


title: Case C-356/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the case of Antonio Testa and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention ad adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA

text:
9.12.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/9
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is      Infringement of Article 190                        of  the    EC
      the proper construction of Article 46(2)(b) [of that               Treaty (now Article 253 EC)
      regulation] that ‘the duration of the periods of insurance
      or of residence completed before the materialisation of            Regulation No 1364/00 provides no reason for fixing the
      the risk under the legislation which [the competent                derived intervention price for another five Member States but
      institution of a Member State] administers’ also includes          not for Italy. Neither does Regulation No 1363/00 provide
      those periods of notional contribution corresponding to            any reason for fixing the intervention price. This prevents the
      periods prior to materialisation of the risk which, under          Italian Government from exercising its rights of the defence
      the legislation of the Member State concerned, are to be           and also hinders judicial review of the contested measures.
      taken into account as periods of contribution for the
      purpose of determining the amount of old-age pension?
                                                                         Breach of the principle of equality
                                                                         Article 1 of Regulation No 1364/00 fails to fix the derived
                                                                         intervention price for white sugar in respect of Italy while
                                                                         confirming it for five other Member States.
                                                                         Even though the Italian Government does not know why the
                                                                         Council has refused to fix a derived intervention price for Italy
                                                                         while confirming it for the other Member States, it nevertheless
                                                                         denounces a breach of the principle of equality and complains
Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Council of the                    that it has been treated differently.
         European Union against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 156, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) L 156, p. 1.
                          (Case C-352/00)
                          (2000/C 355/15)
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana by order of that
ties on 22 September 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented           court of 18 January 2000 in the case of Antonio Testa
by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo del Gaizo, acting as               and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Nazionale per le
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention ad
Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-356/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/16)
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1364/00 (1) in
      so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      white sugar in respect of all the Italian areas for the            European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
      2000/2001 marketing year; in so far as necessary, also             tivo Regionale per la Toscana (Regional Administrative Court,
      annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation No 1363/00 (2)            Tuscany) of 18 January 2000, received at the Court Registry
      in so far as it fixes the intervention price for Italy;            on 25 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Antonio Testa and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Naziona-
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.          le per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention
                                                                         ad adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA on the following
                                                                         questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.    Must Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council
                                                                               Directive 93/22/EEC (1) of 10 May 1993 (on investment
                                                                               services in the securities field), which contains the defi-
                                                                               nition ‘[m]anaging portfolios of investments in accord-
Infringement of Article 3(4) and (5) of Basic                                  ance with mandates given by investors on a discriminat-
Regulation No 2038/99                                                          ory, client-by-client basis’ be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               that Community provision is infringed by a national
                                                                               provision which departs from it and which, in this case,
The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic                        does not require that the management of portfolios of
regulation by fixing intervention prices (including the derived                investments should be on ‘a discriminatory, client-by-
intervention prices) in June or July 2000 when it should have                  client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
fixed them earlier in August 1999.                                             investors’?
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.12.2000
2.   Conversely, does a national provision which, in                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
     implementing a ‘harmonising’ directive, omits the above-          richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 August 2000
     mentioned requirements, conform with Community law?               in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH against
                                                                       Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche Bibliothek
                                                                                (Case C-358/00)
(1) OJ L 141 of 11.6.1993, p. 27.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/18)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                       Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) of 2 August
                                                                       2000, received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of Buchhändler-Vereinigung
                                                                       GmbH against Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG and Die Deutsche
                                                                       Bibliothek on the following question concerning the interpret-
                                                                       ation of Articles 1 and 8 of Council Directive 97/52/EEC (1) of
                                                                       18 June 1992 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                       the award of public service contracts, amended by Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               97/52/EC (2) of 13 October 1997 (hereinafter ‘the Service
richt Bremen by order of 22 May 2000 in the case of Fikri              Directive’):
              Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                       Does the Service Directive also apply to a contract
                        (Case C-357/00)                                (a)   by which the contracting authority confers on the
                                                                             contractor the exclusive publishing rights (right of repro-
                                                                             duction and distribution) in a bibliography compiled by
                                                                             it — in this case the German National Bibliography,
                        (2000/C 355/17)
                                                                       (b) which requires the contractor to reproduce and market
                                                                             the bibliography on his own account and to pay the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       contracting authority a reasonable fee on the basis of the
European Communities by order of 22 May 2000 by the                          publishing proceeds for each copy sold, and
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Bremen, which was
received at the Court Registry on 27 September 2000, for a             (c)   in which the contracting authority reserves rights of
preliminary ruling in the case of Fikri Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde               supervision and codetermination with regard to the
Bremen on the following questions:                                           reproduction and distribution of the bibliography?
1.   Is a family member within the meaning of Article 7, first         (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-          (2) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
     Turkey Association Council on the development of the
     Association (Decision No 1/80) entitled to have access to
     the labour market even in the case where, after satisfying
     the conditions set out in the first paragraph of Article 7
     of Decision No 1/80, he has been given a custodial
     sentence of seven years and six months, of which he shall
     have to serve at least one half or two thirds?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the
                                                                       Bundesgerichtshof of 30 March 2000 in the case of Land
                                                                       Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag
2.   Does a right of access to the labour market also exist                                          GmbH
     under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80,
     notwithstanding a long-term custodial sentence, in the
     case where the member of the family of the Turkish                                         (Case C-360/00)
     worker is entitled only to respond to any offer of
     employment subject to the priority to be given to workers                                  (2000/C 355/19)
     from the Member States (Article 7, first paragraph, first
     indent)?                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal
                                                                       Court of Justice) by order of 30 March 2000, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 28 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of Land Hessen against G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen-
                                                                       und Musikverlag GmbH on the following question:


title: Case C-609/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2011 in Case T-427/09 centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/6

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2011 in Case T-427/09 centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-609/11 P)
   2012/C 80/08
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-427/09,

               —

               dismiss the action brought by centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2009 in Case R 6/2008-4,

               —

               order centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing the action of the appellant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2009 on revocation proceedings between centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG and Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH.
   The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The contested decision infringes Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and Article 134(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. According to these provisions, the General Court was obliged to take account of all of the pleas in law made by the appellant.

               2.

               Furthermore, the judgment under appeal is incompatible with Articles 51(1)(a) and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. It relies on a mistaken premiss that it is the appellant that bears the burden of proof of use such as to preserve the rights attached to the contested marks. In actual fact, in revocation proceedings under Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 the principle of a competent authority’s duty to examine facts of its own motion applies. Moreover, it follows from the provisions and the scheme of Regulation No 207/2009, in particular from a comparison of the revocation procedure provisions with those governing opposition and invalidity due to relative grounds for refusal, that, in revocation proceedings, in principle it is not the proprietor of the contested mark who has to adduce evidence of use.
               It follows, in particular, that the failure of OHIM to take account of evidence on the ground of an alleged submission being out of time is not justified.

               3.

               By wrongly accepting, in contrast to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that the concept of genuine use constitutes a contrast to mere minimal use, the General Court misinterpreted Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               4.

               Finally, OHIM’s statement, which was not contradicted by the General Court, according to which the sworn statement of the manager of the appellant does not constitute evidence under Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009 is incorrect and contradicts the case-law of the General Court itself.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-381/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2009 — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 September 2009 — Gennaro Curia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-381/09)
   2009/C 282/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gennaro Curia

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

      Question referred

   In accordance with the Community law principles set out in the Sixth VAT Directive of the neutrality of VAT and exemption from VAT, under conditions laid down by the Member States, for transactions entailing the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it, can exorbitant lending activities, which are a criminal offence under national law, be subject to VAT where, in economic terms, they may be envisaged as being in competition with the corresponding lawful activities of granting money loans, which fall within the scope of VAT under national law but are deemed exempt thereunder whenever they may be regarded as ‘finance transactions’?


title: Case C-120/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Administratīvā rajona tiesa v Ministru kabinets
   (Case C-120/17)
   (2017/C 168/31)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Satversmes tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Administratīvā rajona tiesa

      Other party to the proceedings: Ministru kabinets

      Questions referred

               (1)

               In view of the shared competences of the European Union and the Member States in the area of agriculture, are the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 (1) to be interpreted, in the light of one of the objectives of that regulation (that farmers should participate in the early retirement measure), as precluding a Member State, in the context of measures implementing that regulation, from enacting legislation pursuant to which support for early retirement from farming may be inherited?

               (2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, that is, if the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 prohibit the inheritance of early retirement support, is it possible, in a situation in which a legal provision of a Member State has been held by the European Commission, under the appropriate procedure, to be compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1257/1999 and farmers have participated in the early retirement measure in accordance with national practice, for an individual right to inherit the support granted under that measure to have been acquired?

               (3)

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, that is, if it is possible for such an individual right to have been acquired, can the conclusion reached at the meeting of the European Commission Committee on Rural Development of 19 October 2001, to the effect that support for early retirement from farming cannot be passed on to the heirs of the transferor of a farm, be regarded as a ground for the early termination of the acquired individual right referred to above?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).


title: Case F-13/06: Action brought on  9 February 2006  — Zuleta de Reales Ansaldo v Court of Justice

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/36

         Action brought on 9 February 2006 — Zuleta de Reales Ansaldo v Court of Justice
   (Case F-13/06)
   (2006/C 96/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Leticia Zuleta de Reales Ansaldo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2005 appointing the applicant and grading her at grade A*7, step 2;

               —

               Reinstate the applicant at the grade (A*10, step 2) in which she should as a matter of course have been graded in accordance with the provisions in the notice of competition CJ/LA/25 in which she was a successful candidate;

               —

               Wholly restore the applicant's rightful career prospects with retrospective effect from the date on which she was graded at the grade and step thus adjusted, including interest for late payment;

               —

               Consequently, restore the applicant's right to the salary corresponding to grade A*10, step 2 as from her appointment and restore her pension rights and the benefits and allowances to which she is entitled as well as ensuring that, for promotion purposes, regard is had to the date of her appointment;

               —

               Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant took part in competition CJ/LA/25 aimed at constituting a reserve list of Spanish-language lawyer-linguists for grades LA7/LA6.
   After passing the competition, the applicant was informed that she had been appointed as a probationary official at grade A*7, step 2 in the Translation Directorate of the Court of Justice as from 16 May 2005.
   In her action the applicant challenges her classification at a lower grade pursuant to the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities. (1)

   In support of her action, the applicant submits two pleas in law. The first consists of a plea of illegality against Article 12(3) and Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. The second is based on the infringement of the principle of good administration, the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials, the principle of transparency, the principle of good faith, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  OJ L 124, of 27.04.2004, p. 1


title: Case C-320/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 226/10                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          represented by Claudia Schmidt of the Commission's Legal
                                                                            Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
30 June 2002.
                                                                            1.    Rule that the imposition of a ban on the use of a section of
                                                                                the A 12 Inntal motorway between kilometre 20,359 in
                                                                                the Kundl local authority area and kilometre 66,780 in the
                                                                                Ampass local authority area by heavy goods vehicles with a
(1) OJ L 167 of 2.7.1999, p. 33.                                                  total weight exceeding 7,5 tonnes which carry certain
                                                                                goods is incompatible with the Republic of Austria's obli-
                                                                                gations under Articles 1 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 881/92 (1), Articles 1 and 6 of Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 3118/93 (2) and Articles 28 EC to 30 EC;
Reference for a         preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
Administratif de       Paris by judgment of that Court of                         proceedings.
3 July 2003 in          the case of Serge Briheche against
Minister for the        Interior, Internal Security and Local
                             Freedoms                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-319/03)
                                                                            On 27 May 2003, the First Minister of the Land of Tyrol imposed,
                          (2003/C 226/16)                                   on the basis of the Austrian Immissionsschutzgesetz — Luft
                                                                            (Immission Control Act — air), a ban on the use by heavy
                                                                            goods vehicles carrying certain goods of a 46 km stretch of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            A 12 Inntal motorway. This absolute ban applies to the vehicles
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                            covered with immediate effect from 1 August 2003 for an inde-
Administratif de Paris (Administrative Court, Paris) of 3 July
                                                                            finite period.
2003, received at the Court Registry on 24 July 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Serge Briheche against Minister
for the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms on the               The Commission takes the view that, in imposing this ban, the
following question:                                                         Republic of Austria has acted in breach of the abovementioned
                                                                            obligations of primary and secondary law.
                                                                            The transit ban or the ‘pressure to use railways’ creates addi-
Does Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (1) preclude                   tional delays and costs for the heavy goods vehicles and under-
France from maintaining in force the provisions of Article 8 of             takings concerned. The ban thus constitutes a manifest obstacle
Law No 75-3 of 3 January 1975, as amended by Law                            to the free movement of goods. The approach chosen by the
No 79-569 of 7 July 1979 and Law No 2001-397 of 9 May                       Republic of Austria in applying the ban only to transit traffic,
2001, concerning widows who have not remarried?                             approximately 80 % of which is effected by foreign hauliers,
                                                                            thus entails preferential treatment of the national/local move-
                                                                            ment of goods or, in other words, indirect discrimination of the
                                                                            transport of goods by foreign carriers. That discrimination
                                                                            cannot be justified on the ground of environmental protection.
(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-           For that reason alone, it must be found that the Republic of
    mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women         Austria has infringed Article 28 EC.
    as regards access to employment, vocational training and promo-
    tion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40).
                                                                            The Commission argues alternatively that, even if the measure
                                                                            is not discriminatory, the argument based on protection of the
                                                                            environment cannot be accepted because the Austrian measure
                                                                            does not meet the requirements of the principle of proportion-
                                                                            ality. There are less stringent measures, that is to say, measures
                                                                            which appear equally suitable to achieve the aim sought but
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the                     which present less of an obstacle to the free movement of
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                      goods. Since it cannot be justified on the grounds of environ-
                                                                            mental protection, the measure ultimately infringes Article 28 EC.
                          (Case C-320/03)
                          (2003/C 226/17)                                   It is clear from Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 and Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3118/93 that, in principle, conditions for the free
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                circulation of goods transport other than those laid down in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July                 those regulations are impermissible. There is no exception
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         limiting the scope of that principle. There has thus been a
 ---pagebreak--- 20.9.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/11
breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of                    Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.                                      European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-326/03)
(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.                                                                              (2003/C 226/19)
                                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-324/03)
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 226/18)                                         Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
                                                                                the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
An action against the Commission of the European                                   seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners"
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian                                Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,                     any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                                          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
      14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
      far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances        Pleas in law and main arguments
      granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
      19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based                The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      or with which it is connected;                                         expired on 30 June 2002.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.
The applicant claims that the contested act is manifestly
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-                Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of            division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted         the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the            y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-                                            G.M. Imo
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-                                      (Case C-330/03)
ally borne by the final recipient itself.
                                                                                (2003/C 226/20)
The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
dictory.                                                                     European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                             Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
                                                                             Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
                                                                             21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
                                                                             other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions:


title: Case F-87/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 — Schuerings v European Training Foundation (ETF) (Civil service — Staff of the European Training Foundation — Temporary Agent — Contract of unlimited duration — Dismissal — Requirement to provide a valid reason — Abolition of a post — Duty of care — Reallocation)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/59

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 — Schuerings v European Training Foundation (ETF)
   (Case F-87/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Staff of the European Training Foundation - Temporary Agent - Contract of unlimited duration - Dismissal - Requirement to provide a valid reason - Abolition of a post - Duty of care - Reallocation)
   2011/C 30/110
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gisela Schuerings (Nice, France) (represented by: N. Lhoest and L. Delhaye, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by: T. Ciccarone, Agent, assisted by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annul the defendant’s decision to dismiss the applicant, and order the European Foundation to provide compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision to dismiss Ms Schuerings of 23 October 2007;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Training Foundation (ETF) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008, p. 43.


title: Case C-12/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2008 — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis, Marc Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle Marra, Youssef Belkaid, Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert, Richard Toussaint, Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli, Khalid Zari, Isabelle Longaretti, Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx, Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti, Alberto D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe Montaperto

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2008 — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis, Marc Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle Marra, Youssef Belkaid, Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert, Richard Toussaint, Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli, Khalid Zari, Isabelle Longaretti, Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx, Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti, Alberto D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe Montaperto
   (Case C-12/08)
   (2008/C 79/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour du travail de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation

      Defendants: Dervis Odemis, Marc Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle Marra, Youssef Belkaid, Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert, Richard Toussaint, Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli, Khalid Zari, Isabelle Longaretti, Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx, Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti, Alberto D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe Montaperto
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1), which provides that:

                  ‘Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available to the workers' representatives and/or workers’,
               be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in favour of employment, in so far as it provides that a worker can no longer challenge compliance with the procedure for informing and consulting,

                           —

                           except on the ground that the employer has not complied with the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) of that law,

                           —

                           and to the extent that the staff representatives within the Works Council or, where no such council exists, the members of the union delegation or, where no such delegation exists, those workers who should be informed and consulted, have notified the employer of objections, in respect of compliance with one or more of the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) within 30 days of the display referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 66(2),

                           —

                           and where the worker made redundant has informed the employer, in a letter sent by recorded delivery [within 30 days from the date of redundancy] or from the date on which the redundancies acquired their status as collective redundancies, that he was challenging compliance with the procedure for informing and consulting and he was seeking to be reinstated in his post?

               2.

               Assuming that Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies may be interpreted as allowing Member States to adopt provisions of national law such as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in favour of employment, in so far as it provides that a worker made redundant can no longer challenge compliance with the procedure for informing and consulting except on the ground that the employer has not fulfilled the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) of that law, and to the extent that staff representatives within the Works Council or, where no such council exists, the members of the union delegation or, where no such delegation exists, the workers who should be informed and consulted, have notified the employer of objections in respect of compliance with one or more of the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) within a period of 30 days from the display referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 66(2) and where the worker made redundant has informed the employer, in a letter sent by recorded delivery within 30 days from the date of redundancy or from the date on which the redundancies acquired their status as collective redundancies, that he was challenging compliance with the procedure for informing and consulting and he was seeking to be reinstated in his post,
               is such a system compatible with the fundamental rights of the individual which form an integral part of the general principles of law — respect for which is ensured by the Community judicature — and more particularly with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               3.

               Can a national court seised of a dispute between two individuals — in the present case a worker and his former employer — disapply a provision of national law which is contrary to the provisions of a Community directive, such as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in favour of employment, in order to give effect to other provisions of national law which transpose, apparently correctly, a Community directive, such as the provisions contained in Collective Labour Agreement No 24 of 2 October 1975, made compulsory by Royal Decree of 21 January 1976, but whose effective application is frustrated by the provision of national law which is contrary to a Community directive, in the present case Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998;

               4.

                           (1)

                           Must Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998, particularly paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 66(1) of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in favour of employment, in so far as it provides that an employer who intends to satisfy his obligations in the context of collective redundancies is only bound to provide evidence that he has fulfilled the following conditions:

                                       1.

                                       he must present to the Works Council or, where no such council exists, to the union delegation or, where no such delegation exists, to the workers, a written report in which he indicates his intention to proceed with collective redundancies;

                                       2.

                                       he must be able to provide evidence, in respect of the intention to proceed with collective redundancies, that he has assembled the Works Council or, where no such council exists, that he has met with the union delegation or, where no such delegation exists, with the workers;

                                       3.

                                       he must have allowed the staff representatives within the Works Council or, where no such council exists, the members of the union delegation or, where no such delegation exits, the workers, to raise questions regarding the collective redundancies contemplated and to make arguments or submit counter-proposals on that issue;

                                       4.

                                       he must have examined those questions, arguments and counter-proposals referred to in (iii) and have replied to them.

                           (2)

                           Must that same provision be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 67(2) of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in favour of employment, in so far as it provides that a worker made redundant can challenge compliance with the procedure for informing and consulting only on the ground that the employer has not complied with the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) at issue in point 1 above?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-105/00: Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 163/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the requisite
                                                                                (Case C-105/00)
     measures to establish and implement an effective system
     of strict protection for the sea turtle caretta caretta on
     Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the species                                     (2000/C 163/16)
     during its egg-laying period (end of May to end of August)
     and any activity which might bring about deterioration in,         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     or destruction of, its breeding areas, and consequently not        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
     complying with its obligations pursuant to Article 12(1)(b)        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992          represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
     on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
     obligations under the EC Treaty;                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council
                                                                             Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 (1), the Portu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                             Treaty; and
According to the Commission, full and effective implemen-               2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
tation of Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43 requires the adoption
of specific laws, regulations or administrative measures and
the taking of substantive measures on site to protect the               Pleas in law and main arguments
particular species.
                                                                        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
The Commission established in its reasoned opinion that there           Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
was no specific institutional framework whatever for the                to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
protection of the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, a fact       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
which was not disputed by the Greek authorities in their reply          That period expired on 1 January 1999 without Portugal
of 29 October 1999.                                                     having brought into force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a
Secondly, the Commission referred in its reasoned opinion to                harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
the absence of coordinated measures for the protection of the               length and over (OJ 1998 L 34, p. 1).
sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, above all during the
sensitive period when it lays eggs.
The Hellenic Republic does not deny that it must adopt the
requisite measures to establish an effective system of protection
for the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, in accordance
with Article 12 of Directive 92/43.                                     Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
The Commission thus finds that the Hellenic Republic has
failed to adopt appropriate measures to implement Article 12                                     (Case C-106/00)
of Directive 92/43 fully and effectively.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/17)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.