title: Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission (Appeals — Regional State aid — Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia — New aid — Alteration to an existing aid scheme — Corrective decision — Possibility of adopting such a decision — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) — Incentive effect of the aid — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — HGA Srl. and Others v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-630/11 P to C-633/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Regional State aid - Aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia - New aid - Alteration to an existing aid scheme - Corrective decision - Possibility of adopting such a decision - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4(5), 7(6), 10(1), 13(2), 16 and 20(1) - Incentive effect of the aid - Protection of legitimate expectations)
   2013/C 225/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: HGA Srl., Gimar srl, Coghene Costruzioni srl, Camping Pini e Mare di Cogoni Franco & C. Sas, Immobiliare 92 srl, Gardena srl, Hotel Stella 2000 srl, Vadis srl, Macpep srl, San Marco srl, Due lune SpA, Hotel Mistral di Bruno Madeddu & C. Sas, L’Esagono di Mario Azara & C. Snc, Le Buganville srl, (formerly Le Buganville di Cogoni Giuseppe & C. Snc), Le Dune srl, (formerly Le Dune di Stefanelli Vincenzo & C. Snc) (represented by: G. Dore, F. Ciulli and A. Vinci, avvocati) (C-630/11 P), Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi and G. Mameli, avvocati) (C-631/11 P), Timsas srl (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Pinna, avvocati) (C-632/11 P), Grand Hotel Abi d’Oru SpA (represented by: D. Dodaro and R. Masuri, avvocati) (C-633/11 P)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, C. Urraca Caviedes and G. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-394/08 Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission by which that court dismissed the applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning aid schemes ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid No 272/98’ (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9) by which the Regione autonoma della Sardegna granted subsidies for initial investments in the hotel industry in Sardinia — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 November 1998 in Case T-217/96: Lut Fabert-Goossens v. Commission of the European Communities (Temporary staff - Selection procedure - Professional experience required - Classification in grade)

text:
19.12.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/29
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v
                    of 12 November 1998
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
in Case T-91/96 (125): Council of the European Union v.             Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð application,
                      Nicole Hankart (1)                            primarily, for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                    24 May 1995 reviewing the applicant's classification in
(Officials Ð Action for revision Ð Decisive new fact Ð              step and classifying him, as at 1 June 1991, in grade A 7,
                    None Ð Inadmissible)                            step 2 and not grade A 7, step 3 Ð the Court of First
                                                                    Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
                         (98/C 397/55)
                                                                    President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                    GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 21 October 1998, in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-91/96 (125): Council of the European Union                1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 24 May 1995 in
(Agent: TheÂreÁse Blanchet) v. Nicole Hankart, an official of            so far as it classifies the applicant in grade A 7, step 2
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  as at 1 June 1991 and in grade A 7, step 3 as at
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented initially by                  28 September 1993;
Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure, VeÂronique Leclercq
and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently
by Messrs Louis and Demaseure alone, with an address                2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange Ð application for
revision of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
17 February 1998 in Case T-91/96 Hankart v. Council                 3. Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
[1998] ECR-SC II-149 Ð the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos,
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,           (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in
which it:
1. Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 17 November 1998
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                            in Case T-217/96: Lut Fabert-Goossens v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Temporary staff Ð Selection procedure Ð Professional
                                                                           experience required Ð Classification in grade)
                                                                                (98/C 397/57)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 21 October 1998                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-100/96: Miguel Vicente-NunÄez v. Commission
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    In Case T-217/97: Lut Fabert-Goossens, a member of the
(Officials Ð Classification Ð Additional seniority Ð                temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Professional experience and university education prior to           Communities, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the
                          recruitment)                              LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 de Nassau, v.
                         (98/C 397/56)
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
                                                                    Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for
                                                                    annulment of the Commission's decision to recruit the
               (Language of the case: French)                       applicant as a member of the temporary staff in the
                                                                    context of selection procedure 50T/XVI/93 instead of
                                                                    selection procedure 71T/TFRH/93, and to classify her in
In Case T-100/98: Miguel Vicente-NunÄez, an official of             grade A 7 rather than grade A 5 Ð the Court of First
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at             Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
Krainem (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of             President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/30              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 17 November 1998, in which it:                                    of 12 November 1998
                                                                  in Case T-294/97: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez v.
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                  (Officials Ð Internal competition reserved for Category A
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    temporary staff Ð Application by a Grade B 5 official Ð
                                                                           Unlawfulness of the notice of competition)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                                    (98/C 397/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  In Case T-294/97: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, an
                                                                  official of the Commission of the European Communities,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         residing in London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
                    of 17 November 1998                           Thierry Demaseure, FrancËoise Parmentier and, initially,
                                                                  Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
in Case T-131/97: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez              service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                  v. European Parliament (1)                      SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
(Officials Ð Retirement Ð Article 50 of the Staff                 European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð
                         Regulations)                             application for annulment of the decision of the selection
                                                                  board in competition COM/T/A/97 not to admit the
                        (98/C 397/58)                             applicant to the tests in the competition, which had been
                                                                  organised in order to constitute a reserve list of assistant
                                                                  administrators, administrators and principal administrators
               (Language of the case: French)                     Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                  composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
                                                                  J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
In Case T-131/97: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez,             for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November
a former official of the European Parliament, represented         1998, in which it:
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament (Agent:            1. Annuls the decisions of the selection board of 14 April
Manfred Peter, assisted by Denis Walbroeck) Ð                         and 12 May 1997 in internal competition COM/T/A/
application for annulment of the decision adopted                     97, refusing to admit Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez
pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulation of officials           to the tests in that competition;
of the European Communities by the European Parliament
at its meeting on 15 and 16 July 1996, by which it retired
the applicant and rejected her applications for two other         2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
posts in the same grade Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,           (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has gien a judgment on
17 November 1998, in which it:
1. Declares the action inadmissible in so far as it seeks
     annulment of that section of the operative part of the                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
     decision adopted by the European Parliament at its                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     meeting on 15 and 16 July 1996 which confirms the
     rejection of the application by the applicant for the                             of 21 October 1998
     post of Director-General of the Parliament's                 in Case T-40/95 R II: V v. Commission of the European
     Directorate-General 1;                                                                 Communities
                                                                  (Officials Ð Applications for interim measures Ð
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                              Disciplinary procedure Ð No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (98/C 397/60)
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                  In Case T-40/95 R II: V, an official of the Commission of
                                                                  the European Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European Communities v. Lisrestal - Organização Gestão de Restaurantes Colectivos Lda and Others (European Social Fund - Decision reducing financial assistance initially granted - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Right of interested parties to be heard)

text:
 11 . 1 . 97          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/5
      back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging                 Azevedo, 61 rue de Gasperich — the Court ( Sixth
      of those items entitles the customer, if he proves                Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, acting for the
      purchase of one of those items and satisfies other                President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
      conditions printed on the coupon, to present the                  Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,
      coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of               Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such              judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
      an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the
      manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, the
      taxable amount is equal to the selling price charged by           1 . Dismisses the appeal.
      the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the
      coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original
      supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler
      rather than directly to a retailer.                               2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
H OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 8 .                                  0 ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 5 .
(2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                    of 24 October 1996
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in Case C-72/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European                           the Netherlandse Raad van State): Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Communities v. Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                        Kraaijeveld BV and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van
           Restaurantes Colectivos Lda and Others (^                                             Zuid-Holland (M
(European Social Fund — Decision reducing financial                     (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
assistance initially granted — Infringement of the rights of            the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     the defence — Right of interested parties to be heard)                                        environment)
                               ( 97/C 9/08 )                                                        ( 97/C 9/09 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and                        In Case C-72/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad
Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                  van State ( Netherlandse State Council ) for a preliminary
6 December 1994 in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal and Others v.                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1177, seeking to have that                    between Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld BV and
judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the                    Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland — on
proceedings being: Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                    the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
Restaurantes Colectivos Lda, a company incorporated                     27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
under Portuguese law, established in Almada ( Portugal ),               public and private projects on the environment ( 2 ) and on
Gabinete Tecnico de Informática Lda ( GTI ), a company                  the duty of national courts to ensure that a directive
incorporated under Portuguese law, established in Lisbon,               having direct effect is complied with, although no
Lisnico — Serviço Marítimo Internacional Lda, a                         individual has invoked it — the Court, composed of: G. C.
company incorporated under Portuguese law, established                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray,
in Almada, Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistência                          L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
Maritima Lda, a company incorporated under Portuguese                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
law, established in Almada, and Gaslimpo — Sociedade de                 Edward, J. -P. Puissochet. G. Hirsch and M. Wathelet,
Desgasificação de Navios SA, a company incorporated                     Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-
under Portuguese law, established in Almada, represented                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
by Manuel Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address                 given a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has
for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of Angelo Alves                ruled :


title: Case F-96/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — Demeneix v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Not included on the reserve list — Criterion related to professional experience — Scope of discretion)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — Demeneix v Commission
   (Case F-96/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Open competition - Not included on the reserve list - Criterion related to professional experience - Scope of discretion)
   2013/C 171/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant:
      Laurent Demeneix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant:
      European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/AD/207/11 upholding the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil certain specific criteria for admission to that competition and a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Demeneix to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.12, p. 23.


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials) (OJ C 364, 3.10.2016, as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/26

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials)
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 364 of 3 October 2016
      , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)
   (2017/C 095/34)
   On page 4, in the table of contents, on page 33 and on page 34, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.


title: Joined Cases C-108/14 and C-109/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Nordenham (C-108/14), Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte v Marenave Schiffahrts AG (C-109/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17 — Right to deduction — Partial deduction — VAT paid by holding companies for the acquisition of capital invested in their subsidiaries — Services supplied to subsidiaries — Subsidiaries constituted in the form of partnerships — Article 4 — Establishment of a group of persons capable of being regarded as a single taxable person — Conditions — Need for a relationship of subordination — Direct effect)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Nordenham (C-108/14), Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte v Marenave Schiffahrts AG (C-109/14)
   (Joined Cases C-108/14 and C-109/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17 - Right to deduction - Partial deduction - VAT paid by holding companies for the acquisition of capital invested in their subsidiaries - Services supplied to subsidiaries - Subsidiaries constituted in the form of partnerships - Article 4 - Establishment of a group of persons capable of being regarded as a single taxable person - Conditions - Need for a relationship of subordination - Direct effect))
   (2015/C 302/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Beteiligungsgesellschaft Larentia + Minerva mbH & Co. KG (C–108/14), Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte (C–109/14)

      Defendants: Finanzamt Nordenham (C–108/14), Marenave Schiffahrts AG (C–109/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(2) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2006/69/EC of 24 July 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in their management and which, on that basis, carries out an economic activity must be regarded as belonging to its general expenditure and the value added tax paid on that expenditure must, in principle, be deducted in full, unless certain output economic transactions are exempt from value added tax under Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/69, in which case the right to deduct should have effect only in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 17(5) of that directive;

                           —

                           the expenditure connected with the acquisition of shareholdings in subsidiaries incurred by a holding company which involves itself in the management only of some of those subsidiaries and which, with regard to the others, does not, by contrast, carry out an economic activity must be regarded as only partially belonging to its general expenditure, so that the value added tax paid on that expenditure may be deducted only in proportion to that which is inherent to the economic activity, according to the criteria for apportioning defined by the Member States, which when exercising that power, must have regard to the aims and broad logic of the Sixth Directive and, on that basis, provide for a method of calculation which objectively reflects the part of the input expenditure actually to be attributed, respectively, to economic and to non-economic activity, which it is for the national courts to establish.

               2.

               The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/69, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which reserves the right to form a value added tax group, as provided for in those provisions, solely to entities with legal personality and linked to the controlling company of that group in a relationship of subordination, except where those two requirements constitute measures which are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives seeking to prevent abusive practices or behaviour or to combat tax evasion or tax avoidance, which it is for the referring court to determine.

               3.

               Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2006/69, may not be considered to have direct effect allowing taxable persons to claim the benefit thereof against their Member State in the event that that State’s legislation is not compatible with that provision and cannot be interpreted in a way compatible with it.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P: Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Aid to the steel industry — Restructuring of the iron and steel sector)

text:
11.8.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 227/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 21 June 2001
                                                                                of 26 June 2001
in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99
P: Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)                                  in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v
                                                                                Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (1)
(Appeal — Aid to the steel industry — Restructuring of the
                        iron and steel sector)
                                                                            (Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application
                           (2001/C 227/04)                                  — Difference in pay — Definition of ‘the same work’ and
                                                                            ‘work of equal value’ — Classification, under a collective
                                                                            agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof —
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a
                                                                                specific employee’s work)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2001/C 227/05)
                    in the European Court Reports)
in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P,
Moccia Irme SpA, established in Naples (Italy), represented by                                  (Language of the case: German)
E. Capelli, P. de Caterini and A. Bandini, avvocati, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), represented by
C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati, and Ferriera
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecomprati (Italy),
represented by C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati,                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                     in the European Court Reports)
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 12 May 1999 in Case T-164/96 to
T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97 Moccia Irme and Others v                    In Case C-381/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Commission [1999] ECR II-1477, seeking to have that judg-                   from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Pignatu-                  Susanna Brunnhofer and Bank der österreichischen Postspark-
ro, assisted by M. Moretto), Prolafer Srl, established in Bergamo           asse AG — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC
(Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,              Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore                   replaced by Articles 136 to 143 EC) and of Council Directive
(Italy) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-                   75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
mann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,               the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geel-                the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975
hoed, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                        L 45, p. 19) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June                C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
2001, in which it:                                                          R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                            gues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, for
1.    Dismisses the appeals;                                                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:
2.    Orders Moccia Irme SpA, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Ferriera
      Acciaieria Casilina SpA to bear their own costs and jointly and       The principle of equal pay for men and women laid down in
      severally to pay those incurred by the Commission in these            Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
      proceedings.                                                          have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and elaborated
                                                                            by Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approxi-
                                                                            mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                  of the principle of equal pay for men and women must be interpreted
                                                                            as follows:
                                                                            —     a monthly salary supplement to which the employees concerned
                                                                                are entitled under their individual employment contracts, paid


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 August 1995 in Case T-541/93: Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of the European Union (Partial removal from register)

text:
No C 299/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
Limited, Effem Management Services Limited, Vickers                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Public Limited Company v. Council of the European Union                                       of 9 August 1995
and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      in Case T-541/93 : Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of
                                                                                the European Union (')
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
                                                                                (Partial removal from register)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/40 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 ( )
                                                                      In Case T-541 /93 : Sean Coughlan , James Connaughton,
                          ( 95/C 299/37 )                             Gregory Walsh, Patrick Heffernan , Thomas Fitzsimons,
                                                                      Patrick Wall, Patrick Griffin and John Harris, represented
              (Language of the case: English)                         by James O'Reilly SC , of the Bar of Ireland, and by Philippa
                                                                      Watson, Barrister, of the Bar of Ireland , instructed by Oliver
By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First                  Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre , 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Brasseur, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Arthur
from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 : Freda Elsie Locke and          Brautigam and Michel Bishop ), supported by Commission
Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission                of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and
of the European Communities .                                         Xavier Lewis ) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially J. D. Colahan, then S. T.
(') OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .                                     Braviner ) — application under Article 173 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
                                                                      products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
                                                                      ( OJ 1993 L 196 , p. 6 ), and in particular Articles 8 and 14
     Removal from the register of Case T-529/93 ( )                   thereof — the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                      made an order on 9 August 1995 , the operative part of
                          ( 95/C 299/38 )                             which is as follows :
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      1 . the names Sean Coughlan, Gregory Walsh, Patrick
                                                                           Heffernan, Patrick Wall and John Harris shall be
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First                      removed from the list of applicants in Case
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                     T-541 /93 ;
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-529/93 : Wallace A. Rodgers,              2 . the parties shall bear their own costs including those
Teresa McVeigh, John Rogan, Patrick O'Brien v. Council of                  relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      3.   the interveners shall bear their own costs .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
     Removal from the register of Case T-540/93 ( )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-5 5 0/93 ( )
                           ( 95/C 299/39 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/41 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-540/93 : Kathleen Early v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                   T-550/93 : Dimitrios Benecos v.           Commission of the
European Communities .                                                European Communities .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .


title: Case T-448/16: Action brought on 11 August 2016 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO — Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/17

         Action brought on 11 August 2016 — Mr. Kebab v EUIPO — Mister Kebap (Mr. KEBAB)
   (Case T-448/16)
   (2016/C 383/23)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Mr. Kebab s.r.o. (Košice-Západ, Slovakia) (represented by: L. Vojčík, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mister Kebap, SL (Finestrat, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Mr. KEBAB’ — Application for registration No 12 551 222

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2016 in Case R 987/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               amend the contested decision so that the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of 20 November 2014, No B 002370594, to the application for registration of the composite European Union trade mark ‘Mr. KEBAB’ is dismissed in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO and possibly the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-230/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Weltimmo s.r.o. v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 4(1) and 28(1), (3) and (6) — Controller who is formally established in a Member State — Impairment of the right to the protection of personal data concerning natural persons in another Member State — Determination of the applicable law and the competent supervisory authority — Exercise of the powers of the supervisory authority — Power to impose penalties)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Weltimmo s.r.o. v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság
   (Case C-230/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 4(1) and 28(1), (3) and (6) - Controller who is formally established in a Member State - Impairment of the right to the protection of personal data concerning natural persons in another Member State - Determination of the applicable law and the competent supervisory authority - Exercise of the powers of the supervisory authority - Power to impose penalties))
   (2015/C 381/06)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Weltimmo s.r.o.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 4(1)(a) 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 must be interpreted as permitting the application of the law on the protection of personal data of a Member State other than the Member State in which the controller with respect to the processing of those data is registered, in so far as that controller exercises, through stable arrangements in the territory of that Member State, a real and effective activity — even a minimal one — in the context of which that processing is carried out.
               In order to ascertain, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, whether that is the case, the referring court may, in particular, take account of the fact (i) that the activity of the controller in respect of that processing, in the context of which that processing takes place, consists of the running of property dealing websites concerning properties situated in the territory of that Member State and written in that Member State’s language and that it is, as a consequence, mainly or entirely directed at that Member State, and (ii) that that controller has a representative in that Member State, who is responsible for recovering the debts resulting from that activity and for representing the controller in the administrative and judicial proceedings relating to the processing of the data concerned.
               By contrast, the issue of the nationality of the persons concerned by such data processing is irrelevant.

               2)

               Where the supervisory authority of a Member State, to which complaints have been submitted in accordance with Article 28(4) of Directive 95/46, reaches the conclusion that the law applicable to the processing of the personal data concerned is not the law of that Member State, but the law of another Member State, Article 28(1), (3) and (6) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that that supervisory authority will be able to exercise the effective powers of intervention conferred on it in accordance with Article 28(3) of that directive only within the territory of its own Member State. Accordingly, it cannot impose penalties on the basis of the law of that Member State on the controller with respect to the processing of those data who is not established in that territory, but should, in accordance with Article 28(6) of that directive, request the supervisory authority within the Member State whose law is applicable to act.

               3)

               Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘adatfeldolgozás’ (technical manipulation of data), used in the Hungarian version of that directive, in particular in Articles 4(1)(a) and 28(6) thereof, must be understood as having the same meaning as that of the term ‘adatkezelés’ (data processing).

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-484/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/59

         Action brought on 9 September 2013 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)
   (Case T-484/13)
   2013/C 344/109
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lumene Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2013 given in Case R 187/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE YOUTH EXPERTS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44 — International registration No 1 112 578 designating the European Union

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-297/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV v Orifarm A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 7(2) — Medicinal products — Parallel import — Partitioning of the markets — Need for the repackaging of the product bearing the mark — Medicinal product placed on the exporting market and importing market by the trade mark proprietor with the same kind of packaging)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten — Denmark) — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV v Orifarm A/S
   (Case C-297/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 7(2) - Medicinal products - Parallel import - Partitioning of the markets - Need for the repackaging of the product bearing the mark - Medicinal product placed on the exporting market and importing market by the trade mark proprietor with the same kind of packaging))
   (2017/C 014/12)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsretten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring BV

      Defendant: Orifarm A/S

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where that importer has repackaged that medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark, where, first, the medicinal product at issue can be marketed in the importing State party to the EEA Agreement, of 2 May 1992, in the same packaging as that in which it is marketed in the exporting State party to the EEA Agreement and, second, the importer has not demonstrated that the imported product can only be marketed in a limited part of the importing State’s market, and those are matters which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-6/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 January 2014 — Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v Fridolin Santer

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 January 2014 — Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v Fridolin Santer
   (Case C-6/14)
   2014/C 129/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendants and appellants on a point of law: Wucher Helicopter GmbH, Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG

      Applicant and respondent: Fridolin Santer

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier,

                           —

                           who is carried on a contractual basis (specifically: a contract between the air carrier and the occupant’s employer),

                           —

                           but who is carried for the purpose of a particular job of work (specifically: the blasting of avalanches) and

                           —

                           who is involved in that operation as a ‘guide familiar with the terrain’ and must at the pilot’s direction open the helicopter door during the flight and then hold it open in a particular manner and for a particular period of time,

                                       (a)

                                       is a ‘passenger’ or

                                       (b)

                                       ranks among ‘on-duty members of both the flight crew and the cabin crew’?

               2.

               If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 28 May 1999 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘passenger’ (German: ‘Reisender’) in any event includes a ‘passenger’ (German: ‘Fluggast’) within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that under the conditions stated in Question 1 the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier is a ‘passenger’ (‘Reisender’)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 138, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 194, p. 39.


title: Case T-107/99: Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.8.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/31
Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against                Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia
         Commission of the European Communities                            Retortillo against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-106/99)                                                          (Case T-107/99)
                        (1999/C 226/55)                                                          (1999/C 226/56)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,                 Communities on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia
residing at Uturoa, Raiatea (French Polynesia), represented by          Retortillo, residing in Spain, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address           Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
for service in Luxembourg at the address of Mr Pakowski,                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.                                              Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the scope
— hold that Directorate-General VIII of the Commission                       of the detailer arrangements for the integration of the
    infringed several provision on the transparency of acts of               Schengen Secretariat into the Genera Secretariat of the
    the European Economic Community;                                         Council;
— in addition, order the Commission to pay to the applicant             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decisions of the
    the sum of FRF 20 000 ( in respect of irrecoverable                      appointing authority to appoint ‘en bloc’ as officials of the
    expenses incurred by him in protecting his interests.                    European Communities only those persons who were
                                                                             agents of the Schengen Secretariat on 2 October 1997,
                                                                             and to integrate them into its services;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to send him
certain information, in particular the rates of interest on the
risk capital made available to French Polynesia from 1986 to            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 and from 1995 to 1998 under the Council decisions
relating to the association of the PTOM to the EEC of 16                The Treaty of Amsterdam provides, by means of the Protocol
December 1990, 30 June 1986, 25 July 1991 and 24                        integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the
November 1997.                                                          European Union, for the Schengen Secretariat to be integrated
                                                                        into the General Secretariat of the Council.
In support of his claims the applicant alleges that the
Commission:                                                             The applicant, who was employed in the Schengen Secretariat
                                                                        as a translator from 1 January 1993 to 30 September 1994, is
— failed to fulfil its obligation to provide reasons for its acts;      currently working as a freelance translator. Since the appoint-
                                                                        ing authority has not requested her to undergo a pre-
— breached of the Code of Conduct enshrined in 97/730/EC                appointment medical examination or to provide documenta-
    on public access to Council and Commission documents;               tion proving that she fulfils the conditions referred to in Article
                                                                        28 of the Staff Regulations, she regards herself as having
                                                                        been definitively eliminated from the scope of the detailed
— disregarded the Commission Communication of 5 May                     arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat
    1993 on public access to Community institution docu-                into the General Secretariat of the Council.
    ments;
— infringed the decision of the Council of 20 December                  According to the applicant, Article 5 of the decision of the
    1993 relating to public access to Council documents; and            Council of 30 April 1999 states that it is to enter into force on
                                                                        the date of its adoption and is to take effect on the date of the
                                                                        entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It follows that
— infringed Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
                                                                        the contested decision of the Council has been adopted on the
    of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission
                                                                        basis of the provisions of a Treaty which has not yet entered
    documents.
                                                                        into force. The illegality vitiating the Council’s decision affects
                                                                        all the decisions adopted pursuant thereto and, in particular,
                                                                        the decisions of the appointing authority concerning the
                                                                        appointment of agents of the Schengen Secretariat.
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Articles 4, 27, 28 and 29 of the Staff                By court decision dated 24 December 1991, the Tribunal de
    Regulations and of Annex III thereto;                               Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, awarded
                                                                        custody of the daughter of the applicant, an official of the
                                                                        European Parliament, to her former husband and ordered
— infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol (No 2) annexed              the applicant to pay, with effect from 29 January 1990,
    to the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                         8 000 Belgian francs per month by way of contribution to the
                                                                        maintenance of the child, in addition to the amount of the
— breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-                extended family allowances paid by the European Communi-
    discrimination;                                                     ties.
                                                                        By decision of 15 December 1997, the Juvenile Court of the
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 24(1) of              Abruzzi awarded custody of the applicant’s daughter to her
    the Merger Treaty;                                                  uncle and aunt with effect from 29 August 1997.
— infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations; and              By letter of 1 April 1998, the European Parliament informed
                                                                        the applicant, inter alia, that payment of the family allowances
— misuse of powers and abuse of procedure.                              to the girl’s uncle and aunt could not commence until the first
                                                                        day of the month following the court decision of 15 December
                                                                        1997, that is to say, 1 January 1998.
                                                                        By its contested decision, the European Parliament refused to
                                                                        pay the family allowances in respect of the girl to her uncle
                                                                        and aunt for the period from 29 August 1997 up to and
                                                                        including 31 December 1997; in its view, the date to be taken
                                                                        into account for the purposes of the payment of family
                                                                        allowances to a third person is the date of delivery of the court
Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti                        decision.
              against the European Parliament
                                                                        The applicant maintains that that decision was adopted in
                                                                        breach of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff
                        (Case T-108/99)                                 Regulations. In accordance with those articles, the point in
                                                                        time which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes
                                                                        of payment of the allowances to a third person is the date on
                        (1999/C 226/57)                                 which the child is effectively entrusted to the care of that
                                                                        person by the court decision, even where the decision itself is
                                                                        not delivered until months or even years later. Moreover, it
                  (Language of the case: French)                        must be borne in mind that decision made in family law cases
                                                                        almost always have retroactive effect.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of Firs Instance of the European Communities on
3 May 1999 by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in Brussels,
represented by Claudine Junion, lawyer, Brussels, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christine          Action brought on 3 May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff
Nabozny, 3 Rue Mathias Tresch.                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-110/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 226/58)
— annul the decision adopted by the European Parliament on
    18 June 1998 in so far as it refuses the payment to Mr and                             (Language of the case: French)
    Mrs Reggimenti of family allowances for the period from
    29 August 1997 to 31 December 1997;                                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3
— annul the decision of 1 February 1999 rejecting the                   May 1999 by Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxembourg,
    complaint as unfounded;                                             represented by Laurent Mosar, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame,
— order the European Parliament to comply with the judg-                Luxembourg.
    ment to be delivered, by paying to Mr and Mrs Reggimenti
    family allowances for the period from 29 August 1997 to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1997, plus default interest at the rate                 — annul the decision by which the appointing authority took
    prescribed by law:                                                       the view that the applicant’s absence from 3 September to
                                                                             15 September 1998 was irregular and deducted 68.50
— order the European Parliament to pay the cost.                             working hours from her annual leave entitlement;


title: Case C-423/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/16

         Action brought on 24 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-423/08)
   (2008/C 313/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC on the system of the Communities' own resources (1), Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (2), and Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (3), owing to failure to comply with the time-limits for entry of the Communities' own resources in the event of subsequent recovery and consequent delay in the payment of the same to the Communities;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission complains that the Italian authorities failed to comply, in the event of subsequent recovery of customs resources, with the time-limits for entry of the own resources laid down by the relevant Community rules applicable, in so far as those authorities grant an extension (of sixty days) to taxable persons for the purposes of consultation of the minutes relating to the challenge before calculating the import duties, with the result that delays are caused to the crediting of the Communities' own resources in question. That instance emerged during an inspection of own resources carried out in Italy from 6 to 10 November 2000.
   According to the Commission, that operating practice is incompatible with the Community provisions in force concerning subsequent recovery. In fact, the conditions for verification of the duties are satisfied as soon as the national authorities draw up the minutes in which the amount of the duties to be collected is communicated to the taxable person, since that document indicates at the same time the name of the debtor and the amount of the duties to be collected. In so far as in Italy duties are verified and registered only on expiry of the time-limit granted to taxable persons for challenging the correction of the duties communicated to them, the national rules concerned are inconsistent with the relevant Community provisions, and may give rise to delays, in the present case so far as concerns the date on which the Communities' own resources are made available.

      (1)  OJ L 155, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 130, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 302, p. 1.


title: Case C-37/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2010 — Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen e.G. Sondershausen v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2010 — Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen e.G. Sondershausen v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-37/10)
   2010/C 100/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen e.G. Sondershausen

      Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of the second and third sentences of Paragraph 5(1) of the Flächenerwerbsverordnung (Land Purchase Regulation), implementing Paragraph 4(3)(1) of the Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz (Law on compensation in respect of the expropriation of private property in the former GDR), infringe Article 87 EC?


title: Case T-386/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo v EUIPO — Zanini Porte (silente PORTE & PORTE)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/15

         Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo v EUIPO — Zanini Porte (silente PORTE & PORTE)
   (Case T-386/16)
   (2016/C 383/21)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Falegnameria Universo dei F.lli Priarollo Snc (Caerano di San Marco, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zanini Porte (Corbiolo di Bosco Chiesanuova, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘silente PORTE & PORTE’ — European Union trade mark No 4 191 425

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 240/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               as a preliminary point, ascertain that the Board of Appeal went beyond what had been sought and, in consequence, refer the decision back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, taking into account Article 1(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996, as amended, concerning the referral of a case to a Board of Appeal that has not already heard the case;

               —

               on the merits, alter the contested decision and, consequently, order EUIPO to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal because the decision is unfounded in fact and in law, and at all events to pay the costs, on an equitable basis;

               —

               by way of measure of inquiry, order production of the files relating to proceedings No 000008977 C before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO and resulting Case No R0240/2015.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 37(b)(1) and of Rule 50 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-18/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2015  — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral S.A., KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2015 — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral S.A., KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-18/15)
   (2015/C 118/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral S.A., KBC Finance Ireland

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 56 TFEU preclude national tax legislation under which financial institutions not resident in Portuguese territory are subject to tax on interest income received in that territory, withheld at source at the definitive rate of 20 % (or at a lower rate if there is an agreement to avoid double taxation), a tax applied to gross income with no possibility of deducting business expenses directly related to the financial activity carried out, whereas the interest received by resident financial institutions is incorporated in the total taxable income, with deduction of any expenses related to the activity pursued when determining the profit for the purposes of corporation tax, so that the basic rate of 25 % is applied to the net interest income?

               2.

               Does the same hold good even if the tax base of resident financial institutions, after deduction of the financing costs related to the interest income, or of expenses directly related, economically, to such income, is or may be subject to a higher tax than is deducted at source from the gross income of non-resident institutions?

               3.

               For this purpose, can the financing costs associated with the loans granted, or the expenses directly related, economically, to the interest income received, be proved by the data provided by the EURIBOR (‘Euro Interbank Offered Rate’) and by the LIBOR (‘London Interbank Offered Rate’) — which represent the average interest rates charged on interbank financing used by banks to carry out their activity?


title: Case F-122/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v Council

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/72

         Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-122/12)
   2013/C 26/147
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Lecuyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Council dismissing the applicant and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the Council dismissing the applicant and, so far as necessary, annul the rejection of his complaint against that decision;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 160 181,85 provisionally as compensation for the material damage suffered;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 25 000 provisionally as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-240/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Eurodental Sàrl (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) — Right to deduct — Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses — Intra-Community transactions relating to transactions which are exempt within the Member State — Effect of the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 28(3)(a) in conjunction with point 2 of annex E — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Partial harmonisation of VAT)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Eurodental Sàrl
   (Case C-240/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) - Right to deduct - Manufacture and repair of dental prostheses - Intra-Community transactions relating to transactions which are exempt within the Member State - Effect of the derogating and transitional arrangements provided for in Article 28(3)(a) in conjunction with point 2 of annex E - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Partial harmonisation of VAT)
   (2006/C 331/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel (Luxembourg)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines

      Defendant: Eurodental Sàrl
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 13A(1)(e), 17(3)(b) and 28cA(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Deductibility of VAT charged on goods used for certain intra-Community transactions where these transactions are exempt if carried out within the territory of the country — Making and repairing of dental prostheses
   Operative part of the judgment
   A transaction which is exempted from value added tax within the territory of a Member State under Article 13A(1)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers and Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax, does not give rise to the right to deduct input value added tax pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) of that directive, even when it is an intra-Community transaction, and regardless of the system of value added tax applicable in the Member State of destination.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-154/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Articles 3(2) and 8(2) — Designation of undertakings responsible for universal service obligations — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-154/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Articles 3(2) and 8(2) - Designation of undertakings responsible for universal service obligations - Incorrect transposition)
   2010/C 328/07
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent and L. Morais, lawyer)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Designation of undertakings responsible for universal service obligations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to correctly transpose into national law the provisions of European Union law governing the designation of universal service provider(s) and, in any event, by failing to ensure in practice that those provisions are applied, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive).

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


22.12.2001            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 369/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
      on 25 June 2001 and notified to the applicant on 3 July            The applicant contests the decision adopted in compliance
      2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on            with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
      19 March 2001 against the disciplinary decision of                 T-202/99 annulling the decision of the Commission not to
      19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the                     promote the applicant in the 1998 promotions procedure.
      disciplinary measure of relegation by two steps, pursuant
      to Article 86(2)(D) of the Staff Regulations;                      In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                         of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              principle of equal treatment, as well as manifest error of
                                                                         assessment and breach of the principle of legitimate expec-
                                                                         tations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his application, the applicant claims infringement
of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error
of assessment. According to the applicant, the documents
attributed to him in the context of the award of a contract for                 Removal from the Register of Case T-313/00 (1)
the security of Commission buildings were issued by a
hierarchical superior who was perfectly well aware of the                                         (2001/C 369/26)
situation. Accordingly, those documents cannot be attributed
to the applicant.                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 13 June 2001, the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities (Single Judge: M. Forwood), has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-313/00,
Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe
                                                                         Sjoerd Feenstra v Commission of the European Communities.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-264/01)                                  (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                        (2001/C 369/25)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-90/01 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2001/C 369/27)
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Léon Rappe,
residing in Orp-Jauche (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël                                 (Language of the case: German)
Louis and Véronique Peere, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              By order of 6 July 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                  has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-90/01,
      18 December 2000 not to promote the applicant to                   Christine Janush v European Central Bank.
      Grade A in the 1998 promotions procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.


title: Case C-258/06: Action brought on  12 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/28

         Action brought on 12 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-258/06)
   (2006/C 178/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/92/EC into Spanish law expired on 15 January 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 9, 2003, p. 3.


title: Case C-7/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 9 January 2008 — Har Vaessen Douane Service B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 9 January 2008 — Har Vaessen Douane Service B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-7/08)
   (2008/C 92/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Har Vaessen Douane Service B.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of 7 November 1991 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the relief referred to in that Article may be claimed in respect of consignments made up of goods which are individually of negligible value but are dispatched as a grouped consignment with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold in Article 27?

               2.

               Should Article 27 of the regulation referred to be applied on the basis that ‘dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community’ also covers a situation in which the goods are in a third country before being dispatched to the consignee but the consignee's contractual partner is established in the Community?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 318, p. 3.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 8 October 1996 in the case of Clean Car Autoservice Ges.m.b.H. v. Landeshauptmann von Wien (Case C-350/96)

text:
21 . 12 . 96                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 388/5
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                         Action brought on 25 October 1996 by the Italian
      costs .                                                                      Republic against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C-352/96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                       ( 96/C 388/ 10 )
The mandatory character of the first paragraph of Article 5                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
requires Member States to implement directives addressed                     Communities on 25 October 1996 by the Italian Republic,
to them in such a way that they take full effect by the                      represented by its Agent, Professor Umberto Leanza,
expiry of the prescribed period. That period expired on                      assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with
5 May 1994 in relation to Directive 94/3/EC, and on                          an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
30 June 1994 in relation to the other Directives referred to                 Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
above, without the Federal Republic of Germany having
taken the necessary measures.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should declare null
                                                                             and void Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1522/96 of 24 July
f1)   OJ No   L 250, 7. 10. 1993 , p . 29 .                                  1996 (*) and, in particular, Articles 3 , 4 and 9 thereof.
(2)   OJ No   L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 31 .
(3)   OJ No   L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 33 .
(4 )  OJ No   L 256, 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(5)   OJ No   L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 25 .
(6)   OJ No   L 32, 5 . 2 . 1994, p. 37.
                                                                             The Italian Republic maintains that, by adopting
                                                                             Regulation ( EC ) No 1522/96 and, in particular, Articles 3 ,
                                                                             4 and 9 thereof, the Council of the European Union has
                                                                             infringed GATT Article XXIV ( 6 ), Article 43 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty and the fundamental principle of proportionality. It
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  also argues that the Commission infringed essential
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of                             procedural requirements: specifically, it failed to provide a
8 October 1996 in the case of Clean Car Autoservice                          proper statement of reasons and misused its powers.
           Ges.m.b.H. v. Landeshauptmann von Wien
                             ( Case C-3 50/96 )                              f 1 ) OJ No L 190, 31 . 7. 1996. p . 1 .
                               ( 96/C 388/09
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by - an order of                                 Action brought on 29 October 1996 by the Commission
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) of                                   of the European Communities against Ireland
8 October 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry                                               ( Case C-353/96 )
on 24 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Clean Car Autoservice Ges.m.b.H. v. Landeshauptmann                                                      96/C 388/ 11 )
von Wien on the following questions:
                                                                             An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
1 . Are Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1 to 3 of                   Justice of the European Communities on 29 October 1996
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 (*) to be interpreted as                 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      meaning that employers in the host State also derive                   represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
      therefrom the right to employ workers who are                          Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
      nationals of another Member State without being                        Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
       bound by conditions which — even if they do not                       member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
      depend on nationality — are typically linked with                      Luxembourg.
      nationality ?
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . If employers of the host State have the right stated in
       Question 1 : Are Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                      — declare that, in failing to comply with the provisions
      Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 to be                       of Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
      interpreted as meaning that a provision such as                              coordinating procedures for the award of public
      paragraph 39 ( 2 ) of the Gewerbeordnung 1994, under                         supply contracts ( J ), as amended by Directive 88/295/
      which the owner of a trade may appoint as manager                            EEC (2 ), and, in particular, in failing to publish its call
      for trade law purposes only a person whose residence                         for tender for the supply of fertilizers on behalf of the
      is in the host State (Austria ), is consistent therewith ?                   Irish Forestry Board ( Coillte Teoranta ) in the Official
                                                                                Journal of the European Communities, Ireland has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
f 1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                             — order Ireland to pay the costs .