title: Case C-457/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G (Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU  — Directive 2004/38/EC  — Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States  — Beneficiaries  — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national  — Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national  — Professional activities  — Regular travel to another Member State)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — S v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v G
   (Case C-457/12) (1)

   ((Articles 20 TFEU, 21(1) TFEU and 45 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Beneficiaries - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen in the Member State of which that citizen is a national - Union citizen residing in the Member State of which he is a national - Professional activities - Regular travel to another Member State))
   2014/C 135/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: S, Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

      Defendants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, G

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 20 TFEU, 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Articles 3(1), 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Persons benefiting from the right of free movement and freedom to reside in the territory of the Member States — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who lives in the Member State of which he is a national but who works in another Member State for an employer established in that other Member State — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen who lives and works in his Member State of origin but who regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a refusal by a Member State to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen where that citizen is a national of and resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State in the course of his professional activities.
   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as conferring on a third-country national who is the family member of a Union citizen a derived right of residence in the Member State of which that citizen is a national, where the citizen resides in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State as a worker within the meaning of that provision, if the refusal to grant such a right of residence discourages the worker from effectively exercising his rights under Article 45 TFEU, which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Joined Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Bassano del Grappa): Danila Bonifaci and Others, Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Liability of the guarantee institutions limited - Liability of a Member State arising from belated transposition of a directive - Adequate reparation)

text:
27. 9 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/ 1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                       relating to the protection of employees in the event of the
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                       insolvency of their employer ( OJ L 283 , 20. 10. 1983 ,
                         of 10 July 1997                               p. 23 ) and on the interpretation of the principle of State
                                                                       liability for loss or damage caused to individuals by a
in Joined Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 (references for a                  breach of Community law attributable to the State — the
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale,                     Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Bassano del Grappa ): Danila Bonifaci and Others, Wanda                Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, D. A. O.
Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza                Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
                        Sociale (INPS ) (')                            G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 1997,
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of               in which it has ruled:
the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC
— Liability of the guarantee institutions limited —
Liability of a Member State arising from belated
      transposition of a directive — Adequate reparation)              Retroactive application in full of the measures
                                                                       implementing Council Directive 80/987/EEC of
                          { 97/C 295/01 )                              20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                       Member States relating to the protection of employees in
                                                                       the event of the insolvency of their employer enables the
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       harmful consequences of the belated transposition of that
                                                                       Directive to be remedied, provided that the Directive has
                                                                       been properly transposed. However, it is for the national
                                                                       court to ensure that reparation of the loss or damage
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        sustained by the beneficiaries is adequate. Retroactive and
           published in the European Court Reports)                    proper application in full of the measures implementing
                                                                       the Directive will suffice for that purpose unless the
                                                                       beneficiaries establish the existence of complementary loss
                                                                       sustained on account of the fact that they were unable to
In Joined Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 : references to the                benefit at the appropriate time from the financial
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                      advantages guaranted by the Directive with the result that
Pretura Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court),                  such loss must also be made good.
Bassano del Grappa ( Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Danila
Bonifaci and Others ( C-94/95 ), Wanda Berto and Others                (') OJ C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
( C-95/95 ) and Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale
( INPS ) — on the interpretation and validity of Article 4 (2 )
of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competition for advancement from Category C to Category B - Decision of the Board failing candidates at the oral test - Consistency between complaint and application - Principle of equal treatment for men and women - Principle of non-discrimination - Scope of the obligation to state reasons - Assessment of the Board)

text:
20.2.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 55/23
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
                    of 17 December 1997                            VeÂronique Leclerq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
in Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v.                Myson Sarl, 30 rue de Cessange, against Commission of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia
(Common organisation of the market in raw tobacco Ð                and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for the
Management by the Commission Ð Action for                          annulment of decisions of the Selection Board in internal
compensation Ð Time bar Ð Principle of proportionality             competition COM/B/9/93, awarding to the applicants, at
               Ð Principle of equal treatment)                     the oral tests in that competition, a mark below the
                                                                   minimum required by the notice of competition and
                        (98/C 55/46)                               therefore refusing to include their names on the list of
                                                                   eligible candidates Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                (Language of the case: French)                     Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
                                                                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, administrator, for the
In Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc.,                  Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 December 1997, the
established in Kavala (Greece), represented by Edouard             operative part of which is as follows:
Didier and JoeÈl GrangeÂ, of the Paris Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed.
Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð
application for an order requiring the Commission to pay           2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty as
compensation for the damage resulting from certain action          (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
taken by it in managing the common organisation of the
market in raw tobacco in the period 1990 to 1991 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 17 December 1997, in which it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. dismisses the application;                                                          of 17 December 1997
                                                                         in Case T-110/96: Dominique-FrancËois Bareth v.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                          Committee of the Regions (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Internal competition Ð Refusal to appoint a
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                   successful candidate Ð Misuse of power Ð Principle of
                                                                          equal treatment Ð Obligation to state reasons)
                                                                                (98/C 55/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 17 December 1997
                                                                   In Case T-110/96: Dominique-FrancËois Bareth, an official
       in Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and Others v.
                                                                   of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   Union, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
(Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from             Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
Category C to Category B Ð Decision of the Board failing           Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
candidates at the oral test Ð Consistency between                  Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 rue de Cessange, against
complaint and application Ð Principle of equal treatment           Committee of the Regions (Agent: Dominique Lagasse) Ð
for men and women Ð Principle of non-discrimination Ð              application for the annulment of the decision of the
Scope of the obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment of           Committee of the Regions of 20 September 1995
                          the Board)                               inasmuch as it refuses to appoint the applicant to one of
                                                                   the vacant posts referred to in the notice of internal
                        (98/C 55/47)
                                                                   competition A/02/95 and appoints other successful
                                                                   candidates to those posts Ð the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                     (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
                                                                   Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
In Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and 29 other applicants,           for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 December 1997,
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,           the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-256/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl (Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — Inheritance tax — Valuation of assets forming part of the estate — Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State — Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl
   (Case C-256/06) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) - Inheritance tax - Valuation of assets forming part of the estate - Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State - Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable)
   (2008/C 64/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Theodor Jäger

      Defendant: Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56 of the EC Treaty — National inheritance tax legislation — Application of different methods for assessing the value of agricultural land and forestry depending on whether they are on the national territory or in another Member State and a deduction in respect of the acquisition of land on the national territory, resulting in a fiscal charge that is heavier where the assets include agricultural land and forestry in another Member State than where all the assets are on the national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 73d of the EC Treaty (now Article 58 EC), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of calculating the tax on an inheritance consisting of assets situated in that State and agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State,

               —

               provides that account be taken of the fair market value of the assets in that other Member State, whereas a special valuation procedure exists for identical domestic assets, the results of which amount on average to only 10 % of that fair market value, and

               —

               reserves application of a tax-free amount to domestic agricultural land and forestry in relation to those assets and takes account of their remaining value in the amount of only 60 % thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Antonio Pernice against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-24/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 94/37
18.7.1992, p. 1), it was entitled to receive a start-up grant        achieved so demands and where the legitimate
from the competent national authorities on submitting to             expectations of those concerned are duly respected. It
them a programme to improve the competitiveness of                   considers that the relevant criteria had in fact been
raspberry production for processing. Pursuant to                     fulfilled and that therefore the retroactive legislation could
Article 2(3), the said grant is fixed at ECU 50 per tonne of         have been adopted. In the applicant's view, the
raspberries as marketed for processing by the producers'             Commission's reliance on the principle of non-retroactivity
organisations, normally during the first marketing year              in order to refuse to accede to the request in question was
following special recognition. As the applicant was                  wholly wrong and unlawful in all circumstances.
recognised in April 1993, the relevant marketing year for
the purpose of determining the amount of the grant was
from 1 June 1993 to 31 May 1994.
Pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2252/92,
laying down special rules for the raspberry market (OJ               Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Antonio Pernice
L 219, 4.8.1992, p. 19), 70 % of the start-up grant was                against the Commission of the European Communities
paid by the Intervention Board, the competent national                                      (Case T-24/98)
authority, on 2 July 1993. Because it was based on a
                                                                                (98/C 94/86)
marketing period which had only just started, the
applicant's grant was provisionally calculated on the basis
of the quantity marketed in the marketing year 1 June                               (Language of the case: French)
1993 to 31 May 1994.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The weather conditions were very unusual during the                  Instance of the European Communities on 26 January
marketing year 1993/94, so that instead of marketing                 1998 by Antonio Pernice, residing at Brussels, represented
approximately 7 000 tonnes of raspberries, it only                   by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
marketed just over 4 000 tonnes. However, Article 6 of               Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Regulation (EEC) No 2252/92 specifically allowed                     in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
marketing organisations, which had been adversely                    Cessange.
affected by bad weather, to use the second marketing year
following recognition as the basis for the calculation of
the grant. Unfortunately, the relevant year (1994/95) was            The applicant claims that the Court should:
even less clement and the applicant's sales tonnage
dropped to just over 3 500 tonnes. The Intervention Board            Ð annul the decision of 12 November 1997 to continue
then sought the repayment of GBP 83 745 from the                          to suspend the applicant of his duties and to prohibit
applicant.                                                                him from attending as chairman, contributor or mere
                                                                          participant in conferences, colloquia, seminars and
                                                                          other events or similar training programmes,
On 25 October 1995 the Scottish Office, Agriculture,
Environment and Fisheries Department, taking an interest
in the matter, wrote to the Commission. In that letter, it           Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant ECU 1 as
set out the background to the problem and requested the                   symbolic damages for non-material and professional
                                                                          damage suffered as a result of successive wrongful
Commission to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1991/92
slightly so as to take into account the exceptionally                     conduct,
adverse weather conditions in Scotland during the relevant
period and thereby not to force the national authorities to          Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
order the repayment of the start-up grant on the restricted
wording presently in force.                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By letter of 16 October 1997 (the contested decision), the           The applicant, a member of the temporary staff, contests
Commission answered that it could not accede to that                 the suspension measure imposed on him by the appointing
request. This decision was based on two points: first, the           authority, pending a definitive disciplinary measure, on the
decision sought on behalf of the applicant would have the            ground of complaints based on failure to observe the third
effect of cancelling a national recovery order and secondly          paragraph of Article 12 and the first paragraph of
such a decision would have to be applied retroactively.              Article 17 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant points
                                                                     out in this regard that the suspension measure was
                                                                     adopted despite the Disciplinary Board's recommendation
As to the first point, the applicant states that there is no         that he be only reprimanded.
reason, legal or otherwise, why the relevant national
authority should not cancel a recovery order where such
                                                                     In support of his claim, the applicant puts forward the
action is warranted.
                                                                     following:
As to the second point, it maintains that Community law              Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations,
permits retroactive legislation where the purpose to be                   unlawfulness of the suspension decision, abuse of
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/38              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
    procedure in the present case as well as infringement           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    of the reasonable period' rule and the principle of
    sound administration. A suspension decision may be              The applicant, a former official of the European
    validly justified only in so far as disciplinary                Parliament, seeks the annulment of a decision which, in
    proceedings are brought against the official or servant         his own view, impliedly suggests that he was responsible
    who has been suspended and pending a disciplinary               for certain financial losses.
    measure. However, in this case, the Disciplinary Board
    did not find, in its recommendation, that there had
    been serious misconduct. Moreover, an abnormally                In support of his claim he alleges, first of all, that the
    lengthy period elapsed between, on the one hand, the            disciplinary measure of 18 January 1988, on whose
    opening of the disciplinary procedure and referral to           lawfulness the Community judicature was called upon to
    the Disciplinary Board and, on the other, the opinion           rule, was based on, among other grounds, the loss of
    of the Disciplinary Board and the disciplinary decision,        supporting documents, not on the loss of cash, a
    which, five and a half months later, has still not been         disciplinary complaint which was expressly ruled out by
    adopted,                                                        the Disciplinary Board.
                                                                    The applicant considers, moreover, that the contested
Ð infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of           decision was taken in breach of the Financial Regulation
    the right to a fair hearing and of the principle of legal       of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of
    certainty. The applicant states in this regard, first, that     the European Communities. That decision is also based
    no reasons were given for the contested suspension              both on the (mis)handling of accounting concepts and on
    decision which contradicts the Disciplinary Board's             documents which are either forged or anonymous.
    finding and, secondly, that all the documents on which
    the adoption of that decision was based were not
    disclosed to him in sufficient time to allow him to             Finally, in the context of his claim for compensation, he
    make comments.                                                  also relies on the violation of a number of fundamental
                                                                    principles of law, in particular of the rights of the defence.
                                                                    In particular, the applicant criticises the defendant for
                                                                    prohibiting him from gaining access to his own file and
                                                                    for using forged or unsigned documents in the procedure
                                                                    which led to the contested decision.
Action brought on 21 January 1998 by Henri de Compte
                against European Parliament
                       (Case T-25/98)
                         (98/C 94/87)
                                                                    Action brought on 28 January 1998 by Albert Nardone
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-27/98)
                                                                                (98/C 94/88)
An action against European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 21 January 1998 by Henri de Compte,                                 (Language of the case: French)
residing at Longeville-Les-Metz, represented by Henri
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service        An action against the Commission of the European
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue               Communities was brought before the Court of First
Mathias Hardt.                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 28 January
                                                                    1998 by Albert Nardone, residing at PieÂtrain (Belgium),
                                                                    represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Ces-
Ð annul Decision No A4-0125/97 of 10 April 1997                     sange.
    Decision giving discharge in respect of the
    implementation of the budget for the financial year             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    1995 Ð Section I Ð European Parliament/
    Ombudsman Annex' (OJ C 132/148, 28.4.1997,
    p. 148),                                                        Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                        on 29 May 1997 following the request that an
                                                                        occupational disease be recognised in accordance with
Ð find the European Parliament liable for the harm                      Article 17 of the Rules on sickness insurance for
    suffered by the applicant and, accordingly, order the               officials of the European Communities and, in so far
    European Parliament to pay to him such an amount as                 as necessary, annul the implied decision rejecting the
    the Court may consider equitable,                                   complaint lodged by the applicant against that
                                                                        decision of 29 May,
Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs,
    including those relating to the pre-litigation procedure.       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-201/97)

text:
No C 212/22             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7 . 97
     Even the instances expressly admitted by the Federal                 Adviser, and Dimitris Triantafillou, of its Legal Service,
     Republic of one-off infringements of the maximum                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     limits would, in the event of the proposal for                       Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
     amendment being accepted by the Council, still not                   Centre, Kirchberg.
     lose their significance so long as the Federal Republic
     continues on average to carry out only eight to 10                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
     sampling operations per bathing season.
— Infringement of Article 6 (1 ) of the Directive :                       1 . declare that, by not giving notification of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply with Council Directive 93/76/EEC of
     The report to the Commission for 1995 shows that                          13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions
     6,5 % of bathing areas on German coasts and 42,5 %                        by improving energy efficiency ( Save ) ('), or by not
     of German internal bathing areas were not sufficiently                    having adopted the measures necessary to comply with
     monitored in 1995 .
                                                                               it, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that Directive;
                                                                          2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jersey by order of that court dated 28 April 1997, in the
case of Emidio Marco Rios against His Excellency the                      Under Article 10 of Directive 93/76/EEC, the Member
                  Lieutenant Governor of Jersey                           States were to adopt the measures necessary to comply
                          ( Case C-l 99/97 )                              with its provisions by 31 December 1994 and to inform
                                                                          the Commission thereof.
                             ( 97/C 212/40 )
                                                                          The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    yet brought its legislation into line with the Directive ,
European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of                    thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 189 of
Jersey dated 28 April 1997, which was received at the                     the EC Treaty and Article 10 of the Directive .
Court Registry on 23 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Emidio Marco Rios and His Excellency the
                                                                          (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p . 28 .
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey on the following questions:
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities (') have the effect that nationals of                    Reference       for a preliminary ruling by the
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                    Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam by judgment of
     deported from Jersey ?                                               that court of 22 May 1997 in the case of Fitzwilliam
                                                                          Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does                     Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS ) against Bestuur van
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey               het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor
      from deporting a national of another Member State                   in law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
      save where such deportation is justified on grounds of                                     Bedrij fsvereniging
     public policy, public security or public health ?                                             ( Case C-202/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/42 )
 (') Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164 .
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities by judgment of the
                                                                          Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court) Amsterdam of
                                                                          22 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 27 May
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of                         1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fitzwilliam
  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                  Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of
                           ( Case C-201 /97                               Fitzwilliam Technical Services ( FTS ) against Bestuur van
                                                                          het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor in
                              ( 97/C 212/41 )                             law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
                                                                          Bedrijfsvereniging, on the following questions:
 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   1 . ( a ) May the words 'undertaking to which he is
 on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                                    normally attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of EEC
 Communities, represented by Hendrik Van Lier, Legal                                 Regulation No 1408/71 be supplemented by other


title: Case C-388/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat lodged on 22 July 2011 — Société le Crédit Lyonnais v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat lodged on 22 July 2011 — Société le Crédit Lyonnais v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-388/11)
   2011/C 298/26
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société le Crédit Lyonnais

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the rules on the territorial scope of value added tax, can Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for calculation of the deductible proportion for which they provide, the principal establishment of a company established in a Member State must take account of the income achieved by each of its branches established in another Member State and, correspondingly, those branches must take account of the totality of income falling within the scope of value added tax achieved by the company?

               2.

               Must the same solution be adopted for branches established outside the European Union, particularly in the light of the right to deduct provided for by Article 17(3)(a) and (c), in relation to the banking and financial operations referred to in Article 13B(d)(1) to (5), which are carried out for the benefit of customers established outside the Community?

               3.

               Might the answer to the first two questions vary from one Member State to another, depending on the options made available by the last subparagraph of Article 17(5), particularly with regard to the establishment of different sectors of business?

               4.

               If the answer to either of the first questions is affirmative, first, is it appropriate to limit the application of a deductible proportion of that kind to calculation of rights to deduct value added tax that has been charged on expenses incurred by the principal establishment for the benefit of foreign branches and, second, must income achieved abroad be taken into account in accordance with the rules applicable in the State of the branch or in the State of the principal establishment?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).


title: Case T-307/16: Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/39

         Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission
   (Case T-307/16)
   (2016/C 305/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the contested Commission Decision of 15 April 2016, reference number Ref. GestDem No 2015/5866 null and void; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) is applicable to Euratom documents:

                           —

                           the word ‘Treaty’ should not be understood in different contexts regarding each piece of EU legislation, but that it should have a uniform meaning.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful:

                           —

                           access to the required documents does not endanger the interest of nuclear safety because the request for information did not affect nuclear safety issues;

                           —

                           the defendant seriously breached its obligation stemming from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and applicable case law of the EU Court to give specific reasons for non-disclosure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the reference by the defendant to the protection of commercial interest is flawed and fails to specify the general considerations on which it bases the presumption that disclosure of the required documents would undermine commercial interest:

                           —

                           the information withheld by the defendant as affecting commercial interest does not satisfy the criteria of commercial information and its age is not taken into account when deciding by the defendant upon the confirmatory application;

                           —

                           there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested data given that public interest is in the disclosure of nuclear information.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 1999 in Case C-267/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Supérieure de Justice [Luxembourg]): Éric Coursier v Fortis Bank SA, Martine Coursier, née Bellami (Brussels Convention - Enforcement of decisions - Article 31 - Enforceability of a decision - Collective proceedings for the discharge of debts)

text:
C 204/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 29 April 1999
                                                                                of 29 April 1999
in Case C-224/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Erich Ciola v Land                       in Case C-267/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                            Vorarlberg(1)                                  from the Cour Supérieure de Justice [Luxembourg]):
                                                                           Éric Coursier v Fortis Bank SA, Martine Coursier, née
                                                                                Bellami (1)
(Free movement of services — Restriction — Moorings —
Restriction for boat-owners resident in another Member
                                State)                                     (Brussels Convention — Enforcement of decisions — Article
                                                                           31 — Enforceability of a decision — Collective proceedings
                                                                                for the discharge of debts)
                          (1999/C 204/18)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/19)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-267/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                           of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
In Case C-224/97, Reference to the Court under Article 177                 the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
of the EC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, for a             Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  the Cour Supérieure de Justice (Luxembourg) for a preliminary
court between Erich Ciola and Land Vorarlberg — on the                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
interpretation of Articles 59 to 65 in conjunction with Article            Éric Coursier and Fortis Bank SA, Martine Coursier, née Bellami
5 of the EC Treaty and Article 2 of the Act concerning the                 — on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 31 of
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic           the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ
of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to                1975 L 204, p. 28), as amended by the Convention of 9
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ                    October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1) — the Court                      Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),                     Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1), by the Convention of 25
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and K.M. Ioannou,                   October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ
Judges; Advocate General; J. Mischo; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
29 April 1999, in which it held that:                                      Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                           composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
1. Article 59 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a         P. Jann, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Ed-
    Member State from prohibiting the manager of a boat harbour,           ward (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
    on pain of prosecution, from renting moorings in excess of a           D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
    specified quota to boat-owners who are resident in other Member        trar, has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it has
    States.                                                                ruled:
2. A prohibition which is contrary to the freedom to provide services,
    laid down before the accession of a Member State to the European       The term ‘enforceable’ in the first paragraph of Article 31 of the
    Union not by a general abstract rule but by a specific                 Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforce-
    individual administrative decision that has become final, must be      ment of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by
    disregarded when assessing the validity of a fine imposed for          the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom
    failure to comply with that prohibition after the date of accession.   of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                           Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May
                                                                           1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                                 Republic, is to be interpreted as referring solely to the enforceability,
                                                                           in formal terms, of foreign decisions and not to the circumstances in
                                                                           which such decisions may be executed in the State of origin. It is for
                                                                           the court of the State in which enforcement is sought, in appeal
                                                                           proceedings brought under Article 36 of the Brussels Convention, to
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/11
determine, in accordance with its domestic law including the rules of       2. Article 2(2) of Regulation No 3950/92 is to be understood as
private international law, the legal effects of a decision given in the          meaning that, whilst purchasers are entitled to deduct from the
State of origin in relation to a court-supervised liquidation.                   price of milk paid to a producer the amount owed by that
                                                                                producer by way of additional levy, the provision does not impose
                                                                                on them any obligation in that regard.
(1) OJ C 271 of 4.9.1997.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 29 April 1999                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-288/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa):                                               of 29 April 1999
Consorzio fra i Caseifici dell’Altopiano di Asiago v
                         Regione Veneto (1)                                 in Case C-293/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice): The Queen v Secretary of State
(Milk — Additional levy — Meaning of purchaser —                            for the Environment and Minister of Agriculture Fisheries
                       Producers’ cooperative)                              and Food ex parte H.A. Standley and Others and D.G.D.
                                                                                Metson and Others (1)
                           (1999/C 204/20)
                                                                            (Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against
                                                                            pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Identification of waters affected by pollution — Designation
                                                                            of vulnerable zones — Criteria — Validity in the light of the
                                                                            polluter pays principle, the principle that environmental
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      damage should as a priority be rectified at source, the
                    in the European Court Reports)                               principle of proportionality and the right to property)
In Case C-288/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                         (1999/C 204/21)
the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del
Grappa (District Magistrates’ Court, Bassano del Grappa), Italy,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                 (Language of the case: English)
court between Consorzio fra i Caseifici dell’Altopiano di
Asiago and Regione Veneto — on the interpretation of Articles
2 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28
December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) — the Court                      In Case C-293/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Second Chamber), composed of G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),                       the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice of England and
President of the Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen,                    Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the
Judges, A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               proceedings pending before that court in The Queen v
has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it has ruled:               Secretary of State for the Environment and Minister of
                                                                            Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte H.A. Standley and
1. For the purposes of Articles 2(2) and 9(e) of Council Regulation         Others and D.G.D. Metson and Others, intervener: National
    (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an                    Farmers’ Union, on the interpretation and validity of Council
    additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, the term          Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
    purchaser is to be interpreted as including any intermediary            protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
    undertaking which acquires milk from a producer under a                 agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) — the Court
    contract, irrespective of the manner in which the latter is paid,       (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
    for the purpose either of treating or processing the milk itself or     Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
    of transferring it to another undertaking for treatment or              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
    processing and which, in the event that the undertaking in              D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
    question is a collection of cooperatives which are themselves           eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    purchasers carries out on behalf of those cooperatives the              judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it held:
    administrative and accounting operations necessary for the
    payment of the levy, and in particular the operations referred to       1. Articles 2(j) and 3(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
    in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of                     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against
    9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of                pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and Annex
    the additional levy on milk and milk products.                               I thereto must be interpreted as requiring the identification of


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 202, 24.8.2002

text:
C 219/26        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         14.9.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 219/58)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 202, 24.8.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 191, 10.8.2002
         OJ C 180, 27.7.2002
         OJ C 169, 13.7.2002
         OJ C 156, 29.6.2002
         OJ C 144, 15.6.2002
         OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-206/04: Action brought on 7 June 2004 (fax/e-mail: 2 June 2004) by Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/26

         Action brought on 7 June 2004 (fax/e-mail: 2 June 2004) by Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-206/04)
   (2004/C 217/48)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 2004 (fax/e-mail: 2 June 2004) by Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais, represented by Paulo Graça, lawyer.
   PROFILPAS, S.N.C. (Ufficio Veneto Brevetti) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 18 March 2004 (Joined Cases R 2407/2002 of 8 August 2002 and R 408/2003 1) of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of Internal Market (OHIM);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘PERFIX’, application number 1635515 for goods falling within Classes 6 (Profiles of metal and accessories), 17 (Profiles of plastic and rubber and their accessories, joints and trim elements in plastic material) and 19 (building materials (non-metallic), edging, (trim) and ceramic joints, edging, (trim) and marble joints, edging, (trim) and joints for coverings in general (not encompassed by other classes))

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               PROFILPAS, S.N.C.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               Figurative mark ‘CERFIX’ (Community trade mark number 587725) and word mark ‘PROFIX’ (Community trade mark number 771196)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and registration refused

               Pleas in law:

               Misinterpretation of Article 8(e)(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 by the Board of Appeal inasmuch as it found that registration of the trade mark sought could result in a likelihood of confusion with Community trade marks No 587725 and No 771196
               According to the tenth recital of the preamble to the Community trade mark directive, assessment of the likelihood of confusion depends on numerous factors …. In the contested decision, the Board of appeal committed a manifest error of assessment in that, after setting out a number of such factors in general terms, it failed subsequently to fulfil its obligation to make a global assessment thereof.
               By analysing the signs by comparison with each other, the contested decision failed to carry out a global assessment of the signs in question, a test set down in, among others, Case C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraph 25.
               Manifest contraction by the Board of Appeal in that, while citing the ‘global assessment of the signs in question’ test, it subsequently adopted a different test and proceeded to ‘dissect’ the Community trade mark whose application was sought.
               The applicant claims that the decision of the Board of Appeal concludes, surprisingly, that despite all the dissimilarities between the signs in issue, there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in question.
               Account should also have been taken of all the Community trade marks registered by third parties in respect of goods in Classes 6, 17 and 19 containing the suffix and/or prefix ‘FIX’, some of which pre-date those of the opponent's. Given that there is no likelihood of confusion as between them, it cannot be claimed that that of the applicant may be confused with those of the opponent.
               The predominant feature of the trade marks in issue is their characteristic portrayal, together with a particular graphic presentation.
               In conclusion: there is no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the consumer in the event of there coexisting on the market of different signs which merely coincide in the term ‘FIX’.


title: Case T-424/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by European New Car Assessment Programme ("Euro NCAP") against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 59/27
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by ARGEV Ver-                          ments would fulfil the requirements of the block exemption
packungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH and Altstoff                         regulation. The imposition of conditions which exceed the
Recycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-                     provisions of the block exemption is impermissible.
            mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-419/03)                                  Furthermore, the applicants submit that the conditions pro-
                                                                          vided for cannot be fulfilled and are unreasonable. Article 3(b)
                                                                          of the decision requires ARGEV and/or its disposal partner to
                          (2004/C 59/43)                                  have continuing information concerning the total amount of
                                                                          packaging licensed through systems in the domestic sector.
                   (Language of the case: German)                         That information is not, however, available. In addition, market
                                                                          shares can only be determined retrospectively. The distribution
                                                                          key laid down by the Commission for the goods collected is
                                                                          therefore impracticable. Moreover, Article 3(b) would, on the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 basis of realistic assumptions, result in ARGEV failing to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                achieve the collection and recycling quota laid down by the
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by ARGEV                         authorities. In the worst case, that would lead to the withdrawal
Verpackungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH and Altstoff                      of approval. The condition is therefore unreasonable, in
Recycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft, Vienna (Austria), rep-              particular because there were less severe means of achieving
resented by Dr Hanno Wollmann, lawyer.                                    the objective sought by the Commission. The proposals made
                                                                          by ARGEV in that regard were left out of account by the
                                                                          Commission in the decision, without any reasons being given.
The applicant claims that the Court should
—     annul Article 2 and Article 3 of the Commission Decision            Finally, the applicants submit that there is a contradiction
      of 16 October 2003 in a proceeding under Article 81 EC              between the operative part and the statement of reasons of the
      and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP D3/                  decision in material respects. The statement of reasons contains
      35.470 — ARA, COMP D3/35.743 — ARGEV, ARO);                         material restrictions of the conditions that are not reproduced
                                                                          in the operative part of the decision.
—     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December
                                                                              1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories
                                                                              of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336,
                                                                              p. 21).
Pleas in law and main arguments
In 1994 the applicants notified several agreements and request-
ed negative clearance or, in the alternative, an exemption
decision. By the contested decision, the Commission approved,
subject to conditions, the bundle of contracts of ARA, the
countrywide Austrian system for the collection and recycling
of packaging waste.                                                       Action brought on 22 December 2003 by European New
                                                                          Car Assessment Programme (‘Euro NCAP’) against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicants object to Articles 2 and 3 of the decision
and claim that the restriction of competition found by the
Commission does not exist. The Commission bases Article 2                                          (Case T-424/03)
of the decision on the fact that ARGEV has given exclusive
contracts in the relevant collecting region to those disposal
                                                                                (2004/C 59/44)
undertakings with which it has concluded collection and
sorting agreements (‘services contracts’). That is incorrect. The
services contracts do not contain either a commitment to                                      (Language of the case: English)
exclusivity which binds ARGEV or on which it can rely. For
that reason, the Commission ought to have given the services
contracts the negative clearance primarily applied for instead
of an exemption.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Moreover, the applicants claim that the services contract                 European Communities on 22 December 2003 by European
satisfies the requirements of the block exemption in Regulation           New Car Assessment Programme (‘Euro NCAP’), Brussels,
No 2790/1999 (1). Even if the services contracts of ARGEV                 Belguim, represented by Mr S. Kinsella and Mr K. Daly,
contained an obligation of exclusivity (quod non) the agree-              Solicitors.
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/28                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              approval of this sum, which the applicant duly did. On
                                                                         20 October 2003, however, the Commission proceeded to
                                                                         pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 257 598,91 which, as it
—     Direct the defendant to honour the settlement agreement            claimed in subsequent correspondence, represented the final
      reached with the applicant and to pay it a total final sum         amount due under the agreement.
      in respect of the Grant Agreement of EUR 40 919,65.
—     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October 2003                 In support of its application the applicant first submits that a
      to pay only EUR 257 598,91, despite the existence of the           binding settlement agreement was reached in May 2003
      settlement agreement.                                              between the parties, providing that the amount payable would
                                                                         be EUR 298 518,65. It therefore asks the Court to enforce that
                                                                         agreement. In the alternative, if the Court should conclude that
—     In the alternative to the first and second pleas above,            no settlement agreement was reached, the applicant claims
      should the Court find that no settlement agreement exists,         that the Commission was bound to pay the original amount
      to order the defendant to pay the applicant the final              claimed, i.e. EUR 305 305,30, since it failed to express its
      amount specified in its Final Report, less amounts already         concerns within sixty days of receipt of the application of
      paid, totalling EUR 47 706,39.                                     payment. The applicant further argues that, in any case, the
                                                                         Commission’s decision to pay the applicant only
                                                                         EUR 257 598,91 should be annulled for failure to state reasons
—     In the further alternative to the first and second pleas           and for non-respect of the applicant’s right to be heard by the
      above, should the Court find that no settlement agreement          Commission before the final decision was adopted.
      exists, annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October
      2003 to pay only EUR 257 598,91 despite the applicant’s
      contractual claim in the Final Report for
      EUR 305 305,30.
—     Order the defendant to pay interest on any amounts that
      the Court finds remain due or have been paid late in
      accordance with the pleas above.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio
                                                                         Valero Jordana against the Commission of the European
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.                                   Communities
                                                                                (Case T-429/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2004/C 59/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The Applicant is an international nonprofit making association
active in the field of new car safety. On 22 August 2001, the
applicant submitted to the Commission an application for a
grant of 25 % funding of a project concerned with the safety             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
assessment of certain types of vehicles, most notably four               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
wheel drive vehicles. Thereafter, on 12 October 2001 the                 European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio
applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement                 Valero Jordana, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by
the terms of which provided that the applicant would present             Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the Commission a final statement of all eligible costs, that          bourg.
on the basis of an examination of the final settlement the
Commission would pay the balance of the grant to the
applicant and that all sums under the agreement were to be               The applicant claims that the Court should:
paid within sixty days unless the Commission, within that
period, informed the applicant that the request was not                  —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
admissible . On 10 December 2002 the applicant submitted                      19 December 2003 confirming the applicant’s initial
an application for payment of the outstanding balance, of the                 classification in Grade A 7;
grant, which it claimed was EUR 305 305,30. On 31 March
2003, i.e. more than sixty days after receipt of the application,
the Commission, not having paid the sum requested, raised                —    In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing
certain queries with the applicant. These led to further                      authority of 9 September 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
submissions of documents by the applicant and a meeting                       complaint;
between the parties representatives. On 2 May 2003 the
Commission informed the applicant that final payment would               —    Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
be EUR 298 518,65 and asked the applicant to mark its                         ings.


title: Case C-327/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 July 2012 — Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Autorità per la vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture v Soa Nazionale Costruttori

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 July 2012 — Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Autorità per la vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture v Soa Nazionale Costruttori
   (Case C-327/12)
   2012/C 295/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Autorità per la vigilanza sui contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      Defendant: Soa Nazionale Costruttori — Organismo di Attestazione Spa

      Question referred

   Do the principles of Community competition law and Articles 101, 102 and 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the application of the tariffs laid down by Presidential Decree No 34 of 25 January 2000 and by Presidential Decree No 207 of 5 October 2010 for the attestation activities carried out by [a specific category of company, namely,] the società organismi di attestazione (SOAs)?


title: Case C-80/04 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Company against the judgment delivered on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/01 between DLD Trading Company and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/25

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Company against the judgment delivered on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/01 between DLD Trading Company and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-80/04 P)
   (2004/C 94/55)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/01 between DLD Trading Company and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Company, represented by Dr J. Hintermayr, Dr F. Haunschmidt, Dr G. Minichmayr, Dr P. Burgstaller and G.J. Tusek, Marienstr. 4, A-4020 Linz.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               allow the appeal and

                           —

                           vary the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 in Case T-146/01 (1) so as to order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 726 728,34; or

                           —

                           vary the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 so as to hold that the claim for compensation is well founded and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so that it may determine the amount of compensation to be paid; or

                           —

                           annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance as regards the following points:

               —

               Erroneous assessment of the causal link between the retroactivity of Regulation No 2744/98 and the damage suffered by the appellant. The damage alleged in the present proceedings was not suffered from 1 January 1998 but, rather, arose from the entry into force of Regulation No 2744/98 on 14 December 1998 with effect from 1 January 1998. The damage was caused not by the allowance fixed by the Republic of Austria at ECU 75 but by the conduct of the Council of the EU. The event giving rise to the damage was the entry into force of Regulation No 2744/98 on 14 December 1998. There is therefore a direct causal link between the adoption of Regulation No 2744/98 by the Council of the EU on 14 December 1998 and the loss of the appellant's claim for an allowance against the Republic of Austria.

               —

               Failure to take account of the fact that the limitations placed on the Community system of reliefs from customs duties (Regulation No 918/83, as amended) by Regulations No 3316/94 and No 2744/98 are intended to protect the economy in regions bordering on Austria (‘border undertakings’). However, despite that intended purpose, the geographical scope of the reduction in the customs allowance introduced by the abovementioned regulations is unlimited. The limitations on the customs allowance under Regulations No 3316/94 and 2744/98 are therefore unnecessary, excessive and disproportionate and thus unlawful.

      (1)  Not yet published in the European Court Reports.


title: Case F-34/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Sluiter v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/68

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Sluiter v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-34/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/126)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Rudolf Sluiter (Hillegom, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Mr Sluiter a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 25


title: Case C-384/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Aid declared compatible with the common market — Dispute between the aid recipient and the national authorities concerning the amount of aid unlawfully put into effect — Role of the national court)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof) — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit
   (Case C-384/07) (1)

   (State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Aid declared compatible with the common market - Dispute between the aid recipient and the national authorities concerning the amount of aid unlawfully put into effect - Role of the national court)
   (2009/C 44/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 88(3) EC — State aid scheme put into effect without prior notification to the Commission, the final amended version of which, however, following its notification, was declared compatible with the common market, without any express negative decision having been taken with regard to the previous non-notified version — Obligations of national courts deriving from the Commission's decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   The prohibition on putting State aid into effect laid down in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC does not require a national court, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, to dismiss an action brought by a State aid recipient concerning the amount of that State aid allegedly due in respect of a period predating a decision of the Commission of the European Communities finding that aid to be compatible with the common market.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-400/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret): Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S (Equal treatment of men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Conditions governing dismissal - Absence due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement - Absence during pregnancy and after confinement)

text:
No C 212/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7. 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 29 May 1997
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
in Case C-400/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sø- og Handelsret): Handels- og Kontorfunktionaerer                in Case C-26/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
nes Forbund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle                        the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Rotexchemie International
Elisabeth Larsson v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on                  Handels GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg
             behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S ( 1 )                                                  Waltershof (')
(Equal treatment of men and women — Directive 76/207/                         (Dumping — Potassium permanganate — Reference
EEC — Conditions governing dismissal — Absence due to                                                   country)
an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement —
       Absence during pregnancy and after confinement)                                              { 97/C 212/08
                             ( 97/C 212/07 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)
   (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-400/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Sø- og Handelsret
 ( Maritime and Commercial Court), Copenhagen, for a                    In Case C-26/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
court between Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes For                    ( Finance Court) Hamburg ( Germany ), for a preliminary
 bund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Larsson and Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of                 between Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH &
Føtex Supermarked A/S — on the interpretation of                        Co . and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof — on the
 Articles 5 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC           validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1531 /88 of
 of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle              31 May 1988 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 of equal treatment for men and women as regards access                 imports of potassium permanganate originating in the
 to employment, vocational training and promotion, and                  People's Republic of China and definitively collecting the
 working conditions ( OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ) —             provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on those imports
 the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                 ( OJ No L 138 , 3 . 6 . 1988 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn                Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
 ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D.                 President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann, J. -P.
 Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz
 Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.                    Hewlett,
 29 May 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
  Without prejudice to the provisions of national law
 adopted pursuant to Article 2 (3) of Council Directive 76/
 207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                     Consideration of the question referred has revealed no
  the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                  factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council
  regards access to employment, vocational training and                  Regulation (EEC) No 1531 /88 of 31 May 1988 imposing
 promotion, and working conditions, Article 5 (1 ), in                   a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium
  conjunction with Article 2 (1 ), of that Directive does not            permanganate originating in the People 's Republic of
  preclude dismissals which are the result of absences due to             China and definitively collecting the provisional anti
  an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement, even               dumping duty imposed on those imports.
  where that illness arose during pregnancy and continued
  during and after maternity leave.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  (') OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2011 in Case E-8/11 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise)

text:
               27.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/16

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 14 December 2011
   in Case E-8/11
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise)
   2012/C 291/07
   In Case E-8/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to ensure that its competent authorities have made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drawn-up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive are sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure that within the time-limits prescribed its competent authorities made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drew up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive were sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case F-15/06: Action brought on  15 February 2006  — Abba and Others v European Parliament

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/37

         Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Abba and Others v European Parliament
   (Case F-15/06)
   (2006/C 96/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Abba and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it;

               —

               consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others v Commission (1).

      (1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.