title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Directive 2001/44/EC — Choice of legal basis)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Directive 2001/44/EC - Choice of legal basis)
   (2004/C 118/21)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-338/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by European Parliament (Agents: R. Passos and A. Baas), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims-Robertson and F. Florindo Gijón), supported by Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan, assisted by E. Fitzsimons SC, K. Maguire BL and D. Moloney BL), with an address for service in Luxembourg, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz), the Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, V. Guimarães and Â. Seiça Neves), with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted by D. Wyatt QC), with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for the annulment of Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 2001 L 175, p. 17) and for the maintenance of the effects of that directive until the entry into force of a directive adopted on the correct legal basis — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders Ireland, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Portuguese Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.


title: Case C-48/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2007 — Belgian State v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2007 — Belgian State v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA
   (Case C-48/07)
   (2007/C 82/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'Appel de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian State

      Defendant: Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA
   Question referred
   Is the Law of 28 December 1992, which amended the wording of Article 202 of the 1992 Code of Taxation on Income by referring to Directive 90/435/EEC (1) and required that the beneficial owner of dividends have a holding of capital in the Company which distributed such dividend, in as much as that Law does not explicitly specify that the holding must be as full owner and therefore implicitly permits the interpretation made by the respondent, that the mere holding of a right of usufruct of shareholdings in the capital carries the right to tax exemption on such dividends, compatible with the provisions of that Directive concerning holdings in capital, and in particular with its Articles 3, 4 and 5?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ L 225, p. 6).


title: Case T-113/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Angelidis v Parliament (Staff cases — Officials — Filling an A2 post — Rejection of candidature — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Angelidis v Parliament
   (Case T-113/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Filling an A2 post - Rejection of candidature - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 22/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Bencomo Weber, J. F. de Wachter and A. Lukošiūtė, agents)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament to reject the candidature of the applicant for the post of Director of the ‘Budgetary Affairs’ Directorate of the Directorate-General for Committees responsible for the internal policies of the Parliament and to appoint another candidate to the post and, second, an application for damages to compensate for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the rejection of his candidature.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 25 February 2004 appointing Mr Alfredo De Feo to the position of Director of Budgetary Affairs of the Directorate-General for Committees responsible for the internal policies of the European Parliament.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-278/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Jabones Pardo v OHIM — Quimi Romar (YUKI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word mark YUPI — Application for the Community word mark YUKI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Findings of OHIM — Admissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/55

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Jabones Pardo v OHIM — Quimi Romar (YUKI)
   (Case T-278/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark YUPI - Application for the Community word mark YUKI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Findings of OHIM - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 326/119)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Jabones Pardo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially J. Astiz Suárez, then A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Quimi Romar, SL (Moncada, Spain) (Moncada, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez and J. Carlos Heder, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jabones Pardo, SA and Quimi Romar, SL.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1) is annulled in so far as it allowed the intervener's appeal concerning ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’, falling within Class 3, and ‘sanitary preparations’, falling within Class 5, referred to in the Community trade mark application.

               2.

               OHIM is to bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by Jabones Pardo, SA.

               3.

               Quimi Romar, SL is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-18/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2007 — Kronberger v Parliament (Interim proceedings — Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/24

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2007 — Kronberger v Parliament
   (Case T-18/07 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 155/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W. Weh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and M. Windisch, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures seeking to obtain, first, a provisional declaration that the award of a seat in the European Parliament to its current holder is invalid, and second, a provisional award of that seat to the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2004 in Joined Cases T-107/01 and T-175/01: Société des mines de Sacilor — Lormines SA v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — Steel — Abandonment of mining concessions — Charges imposed on mining undertakings by the French Republic — Complaint — No favourable response from the Commission — Action for failure to act — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Capacity to bring proceedings — Undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 CS)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 July 2004
   in Joined Cases T-107/01 and T-175/01: Société des mines de Sacilor — Lormines SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (ECSC Treaty - Steel - Abandonment of mining concessions - Charges imposed on mining undertakings by the French Republic - Complaint - No favourable response from the Commission - Action for failure to act - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Capacity to bring proceedings - Undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 CS)
   (2004/C 239/29)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases T-107/01 and T-175/01: Société des mines de Sacilor — Lormines SA, established in Puteaux (France), represented initially by G. Marty and subsequently by R. Schmitt, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and L. Ström) — application for failure to act and, in the alternative, for annulment, concerning the Commission's refusal to uphold the applicant's complaint seeking a declaration that the French Republic had infringed the provisions of Articles 4(b) and (c) CS and 86 CS by reason of the imposition on the applicant of allegedly excessive charges in the context of procedures for the abandonment and renunciation of its mining concessions — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the procedure for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.


title: Case C-76/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 27 January 2005 in Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 27 January 2005 in Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach
   (Case C-76/05)
   (2005/C 93/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) of 27 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach on the following question:

               Is it contrary to Articles 8(a)/18 (freedom of movement), 48/39 (freedom of movement for workers), 52/43 (freedom of establishment) or 59/49 (freedom to provide services) of the EC Treaty to treat payments of school fees to certain German schools, but not payments of school fees to schools in the rest of the European Community area, as special expenditure leading to a reduction of income tax, pursuant to Paragraph 10(1)(9) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on Income Tax) as applicable in 1998 and 1999?


title: Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor in a market economy test — Application where the State acts as vendor — Determination of the market price)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor in a market economy test - Application where the State acts as vendor - Determination of the market price)
   2012/C 109/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Land Burgenland (Province of Burgenland, Austria), represented by U. Soltész and C. Herbst, lawyers (Case T-268/08); and Republic of Austria, represented by G. Hesse, C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl, M. Fruhmann and J. Bauer, acting as Agents (Case T-281/08)

      Defendant: European Commission, represented initially by V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and K. Gross, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria and the Province of Burgenland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-145/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Ms Jutta Hotzel-Wagenknecht against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Ms Jutta Hotzel-                       Action brought on 30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf and Martin
Wagenknecht against the Commission of the European                      Stier against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                         Communities                                                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-145/00)                                                         (Case T-146/00)
                        (2000/C 233/59)                                                         (2000/C 233/60)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
European Comunities on 25 May 2000, by Ms Jutta Hotzel-                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Wagenknecht, Alfaz del Pi, Alicante, Spain, represented by Mr           30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf, of Ettingen (Germany), and
Becker of Rechtsanwälte Stöcker, Begrich, Bömkes, Becker und            Martin Stier, of Pfinztal (Germany), represented by Alexander
Steffen, Herne, Germany.                                                Gaul, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Spitz, Klinger & Partner,
                                                                        Rechtsanwälte, of Munich (Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 1999 and
      the decision on the complaint of 18 February 2000;                —     annul the decision adopted on 28 March 2000 by the
                                                                              First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a full widow’s
      pension backdated to 1 June 1999;
                                                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) to accord the filing date of
—     order the Commision to pay the costs.                                   15 April 1996 to application No 227306 for a Commu-
                                                                              nity trade mark;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is the widow of a former official of the ECSC.            Pleas in law and main arguments
She was receiving a widow’s pension in the amount of 35 %
of her late husband’s final basic salary — he died in 1995. The
contested decision reduced the pension to 25 % of final salary.         The trade mark concer-        pictorial mark ‘DAKOTA’ —
The Commission based that decision on Article 81a of the                ned:                          application No 227306
Staff Regulations which was inserted by Article 9 of Council
Regulation No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985 (1).
                                                                        Goods or service concer-      Class 25 goods (articles of clo-
                                                                        ned:                          thing)
The applicant claims that that regulation does not apply to
pensions claims arising prior to 27 September 1985. In                  Decision contested befo-      reinstate the application as pre-
addition the applicant’s original pension claim has become              re the Board of Appeal:       viously constituted
unchallengable.                                                                                Refusal by the examiner to
                                                                        Grounds of claim:
                                                                                — incorrect
                                                                                cles 78 andapplication
                                                                                27 of Regulation
                                                                                of Arti-
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94
(1) Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of                                             — infringement by the Office of
    27 September 1985 amending the Staff Regulations of officials                                         its obligation to provide an
    and the conditions of employment of other servants of the                                             explanation
    European Communities (OJ 1985 L 265, p. 1).


title: Case C-18/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 January 2012 — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové
   (Case C-18/12)
   2012/C 98/19
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Město Žamberk

      Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové

      Questions referred

               1.

               May non-organised, unsystematic and recreational sporting activities which can be carried on in that manner in an open-air swimming-pool complex (for instance, recreational swimming, recreational playing of ball games, etc.) be regarded as the exercise of sport or physical education within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

               2.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1, is the supply for consideration of access to such an open-air swimming-pool complex, which offers its visitors the above-mentioned opportunity of exercising sporting activities, although alongside other kinds of amusement or recreation, to be regarded as a service closely linked to sport or physical education supplied to persons taking part in sporting or physical education activities within the meaning of that provision of Directive 2006/112/EC, and hence as a service exempted from value added tax in so far as it is supplied by a non-profit-making organisation and the other conditions under that directive are satisfied?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-493/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Persia International Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Persia International Bank v Council
   (Case T-493/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)
   2013/C 304/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Persia International Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley and by S. Jeffrey and A. Irvine, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and, secondly, for a declaration that Article 7(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1), Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 are inapplicable to the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures, in so far as they concern Persia International Bank plc:

                           —

                           point 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

                           —

                           point 2 of Table B of the annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           point 4 of Table I.B of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           point 4 of Table B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

                           —

                           point 4 of Table I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               2.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Persia International Bank until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Persia International Bank;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-334/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Union’s own resources — Refusal to make available to the Union own resources corresponding to certain unlawful customs authorisations — Force majeure — Fraudulent conduct by the customs authorities — Liability of the Member States — Lawfulness of the entry of established entitlements in a separate account)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-334/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Union’s own resources - Refusal to make available to the Union own resources corresponding to certain unlawful customs authorisations - Force majeure - Fraudulent conduct by the customs authorities - Liability of the Member States - Lawfulness of the entry of established entitlements in a separate account)
   2010/C 234/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 10 EC, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 253, p. 42), and Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 11) — Refusal to make available to the Communities the own resources corresponding to certain irregular customs authorisations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to place at the disposal of the Commission the own resources corresponding to the customs debt deriving from the issue by the Direzione Compartimentale delle Dogane per le Regioni Puglia e Basilicata, located in Bari, as from 27 February 1997, of irregular authorisations to create and operate Type C customs bonded warehouses in Taranto, followed by consecutive authorisations for processing under customs control and to use the inward processing procedure, until their revocation on 4 December 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources and Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T -327/06: Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/75

         Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)
   (Case T -327/06)
   (2006/C 326/154)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: H. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Avensa AG (Zug, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2006 (Case R 668/2005-2);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to dismiss opposition No B 575 524 brought by the opponent;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to make a fresh decision on opposition No B 575 524 brought by the opponent in the light of the Court's opinion.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PNEUMO UPDATE’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41 (Application No 2 462 049).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Avensa AG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘Pneumo’ for goods in Class 5, the opposition being brought only against the registration in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The contested decision is not reasoned in a comprehensible manner and it infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. In addition, the applicant claims that the opposing mark is not in use.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-19/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Ministero dell’Interno v Fastweb SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 2d(4) — Interpretation and validity — Procedures for review of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Ineffectiveness of the contract — Exception)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Ministero dell’Interno v Fastweb SpA
   (Case C-19/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 2d(4) - Interpretation and validity - Procedures for review of the award of public supply and public works contracts - Ineffectiveness of the contract - Exception))
   2014/C 409/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell’Interno

      Defendant: Fastweb SpA

      Intervening party:Telecom Italia SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 2d(4) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, where a public contract is awarded without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, but that was not permissible under Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the contract may not be declared ineffective if the conditions laid down in that provision are in fact satisfied, which it is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Examination of the second question has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 2d(4) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 2007/66.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-543/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — RWE and RWE Dea v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiary and by a joint venture owned in part by it — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares — Succession of undertakings — Proportionality — Equal treatment — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — RWE and RWE Dea v Commission
   (Case T-543/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiary and by a joint venture owned in part by it - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Succession of undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   2014/C 292/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: RWE AG (Essen, Germany); and RWE Dea AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler, M. Röhrig and S. Budde, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, primarily, for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on them.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) in so far as the European Commission found therein that RWE AG and RWE Dea AG had participated in the infringement after 2 January 2002;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on RWE and RWE Dea at EUR 3 5 8 88  562;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by RWE and RWE Dea. RWE and RWE Dea shall bear four fifths of their own costs and pay four fifths of the Commission’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-95/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Angelika Eckert v Société Air France SA

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2016 — Angelika Eckert v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-95/16)
   (2016/C 232/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angelika Eckert

      Defendant: Société Air France SA
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 19 April 2016.


title: Case T-323/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Bankia v OHIM — Banco ActivoBank (Portugal) (Bankia) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Bankia — Earlier national word mark BANKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Bankia v OHIM — Banco ActivoBank (Portugal) (Bankia)
   (Case T-323/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Bankia - Earlier national word mark BANKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 363/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: F. De Barba, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2014 (Joined Cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA, and Bankia, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 February 2014 (Joined Cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2) to the extent that it upheld the appeal of Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA, concerning the ‘real estate services’ covered by the Community trade mark application in Class 36;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Bankia, SA, and OHIM to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-421/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2014  — Banco Primus, S.A. v Jesús Gutiérrez García

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2014 — Banco Primus, S.A. v Jesús Gutiérrez García
   (Case C-421/14)
   2014/C 421/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Primus, S.A.

      Defendant: Jesús Gutiérrez García

      Questions referred

      First question:

               1.

               Must the Fourth Transitional Provision of Law No 1/2013 be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of the consumer?

               2.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a consumer permitted to raise a complaint regarding the presence of unfair terms outside the period specified under national legislation for raising such a complaint, and is the national court required to examine such terms?

               3.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, is a national court required to assess, of its own motion, whether a term is unfair and to determine the appropriate consequences, even where an earlier decision of that court reached the opposite conclusion or declined to make such an assessment and that decision was final under national procedural law?

      Second question:

               4.

               In what way may the quality/price ratio affect the review of the unfairness of non-essential terms of a contract? When conducting an indirect review of such factors, is it relevant to have regard to the limits imposed on prices under national legislation? Is it possible that terms that are valid when viewed in abstract cease to be so where it is found that the price of the transaction is very high by comparison with the market standard?

      Third question:

               5.

               For the purposes of Article 4 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, can circumstances arising after the conclusion of the contract be taken into account if an examination of the national legislation suggests that this is required?

      Fourth question:

               6.

               Must Article 693(2) of the LEC [Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure)], as amended by Law 1/2013, be interpreted so as not to constitute an obstacle to the protection of consumer interests?

               7.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair term concerning accelerated repayment, declare that that term does not form part of the contract and determine the consequences inherent in such a finding, even where the seller or supplier has waited the minimum time provided for in the national provision?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-21/17: Action brought on 13 January 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/14

         Action brought on 13 January 2017 — RL v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case T-21/17)
   (2017/C 095/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RL (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 11 May 2016 by the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the contents of which were communicated to the applicant by letter of 20 May 2016, not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 10 as of 1 July 2015 and, so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 6 October 2016 by the Complaints Committee rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant dated 22 July 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the internal promotion system in place within the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of a single European civil service.


title: Case C-366/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by order of that court of  6 July 2005  in Optimus — Telecomunicações, S.A. v Fazenda Pública

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by order of that court of 6 July 2005 in Optimus — Telecomunicações, S.A. v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-366/05)
   (2005/C 330/15)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo of 6 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Optimus — Telecomunicações, S.A. and Fazenda Pública on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985, be interpreted restrictively so as to impose as a precondition for the obligation which it imposes on Member States to exempt certain transactions involving the raising of capital the requirement that the transactions in question must be those which, under the wording of the directive prior to 1985, could be exempted from the duty or taxed at a reduced rate — that is to say only those referred to in Article 4(2) and Article 8 — and which, in addition, were in that situation as at 1 July 1984?

               2.

               Must Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, and Article 10 thereof be interpreted to the effect that they prohibit the levying of stamp duty, by virtue of national legislation such as Decree Law No 322-B/2001 of 14 December 2001, which inserted paragraph 26 — Capital Duty — in the General Table of Stamp duty, on a limited company governed by Portuguese law when its capital is increased, by payments in cash, when, as at 1 July 1984, that transaction was subject to that duty but was exempted from it?

      (1)  OJ L 249, p. 25.

      (2)  O L 156, p. 23.


title: Case C-537/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja (Spain) lodged on 26 November 2012 — Banco Popular Español S.A. v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja (Spain) lodged on 26 November 2012 — Banco Popular Español S.A. v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez
   (Case C-537/12)
   2013/C 38/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 1 de Catarroja

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Popular Español S.A.

      Defendants: Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo and Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez

      Questions referred

               1.

               (Must) Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a judicial authority hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings such as those governed by Articles 681 to 695 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 from examining, either of its own motion or at the request of a party, the unfairness of a clause contained in a contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer, whether or not the latter has formulated opposition(?)

               2.

               Regardless of whether the answer to (that question) is positive or negative, (must) Directive 93/13 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a judicial authority hearing mortgage enforcement proceedings of the kind governed by Articles 681 to 695 of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 1/2000 from suspending those proceedings in the event that declaratory proceedings are subsequently initiated in which a declaration is sought as to the unfairness of a clause contained in the contract concluded between a supplier or seller and a consumer, the said contract having been relied upon to commence the abovementioned enforcement proceedings(?)

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-390/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v EUIPO — PepsiCo (3D) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 3D — Earlier EU word and figurative marks 3D’S and 3D’s — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v EUIPO — PepsiCo (3D)
   (Case T-390/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark 3D - Earlier EU word and figurative marks 3D’S and 3D’s - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 392/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2015 (Case R 465/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between PepsiCo and Perfetti Van Melle Benelux.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (Agriculture — Export refunds — Agricultural products which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex I EC) — Inaccurate declaration — Sanction)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (1)

   (Agriculture - Export refunds - Agricultural products which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex I EC) - Inaccurate declaration - Sanction)
   (2005/C 205/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-542/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 23 December 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Milupa GmbH & Co. KG — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it ruled:
   The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1), the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) and Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 229/96 of 7 February 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that where an exporter has declared in a request for an export refund that, in the production of the goods in issue, a product was used which, by virtue of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is assimilated to the skimmed milk powder described in Annex A (PG 2), whereas in fact another product was used which, by virtue of the same provision, is also assimilated to the same skimmed milk powder, he is entitled to the grant of an export refund, corrected if appropriate in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.


title: Case C-424/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport — Long journey between Member States and third countries — Article 14(1) — Check to be carried out related to the journey log by the competent authority at the place of departure prior to long journeys — Applicability of that provision in regards to the stages of the journey taking place outside the territory of the European Union — Applicability of the standards fixed by that regulation to that part of the journey)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten
   (Case C-424/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Long journey between Member States and third countries - Article 14(1) - Check to be carried out related to the journey log by the competent authority at the place of departure prior to long journeys - Applicability of that provision in regards to the stages of the journey taking place outside the territory of the European Union - Applicability of the standards fixed by that regulation to that part of the journey))
   (2015/C 205/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH

      Defendant: Stadt Kempten

      intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for transport involving a long journey for animals concerned which commences on the territory of the European Union and continues outside that territory to be authorised by the competent authority of the place of departure, the organiser of the journey must submit a journey log which, in the light of the arrangements for the journey as planned, is realistic and indicates that the provisions of that regulation will be complied with, including for the stages of the journey which are to take place in the territory of third countries, that authority being empowered, should that not be the case, to require changes to those arrangements to ensure compliance with those provisions throughout the journey.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 14 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against Industrial Refuse and Coal Energy Limited (Case C-337/96)

text:
21 . 12 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 388/3
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those              21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
Directives — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
J. L. Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for             application of review procedures to the award of public
the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.          supply and public works contracts (*), the Hellenic
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur),                    Republic is in breach of its obligations under the Treaty
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,             and, more specifically, Directive 89/665/EEC.
gave a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 . declares that, ,by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations or administrative                   In the Commission's view, the Greek legislation does not
     provisions necessary to comply with :                            meet fully the requirements of Articles 1 and 2 of
                                                                      Directive 89/665/EEC, in particular with regard to the
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991                possibility of setting aside administrative decisions, the
          concerning the animal health conditions governing           taking of interim measures, the implementation of
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals            decisions of the national courts against the administration
          and products,                                               and the award of damages in cases of unlawful failure to
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991                  award contracts . The Commission also considers that the
          laying down the health conditions for the                   practice of the Hellenic Republic whereby the more
          production and the placing on the market of live            important public works contracts are ratified by law, with
          bivalve molluscs,                                           the result that individuals cannot challenge the award and
                                                                      the relevant contract, is contrary to the general principle
     — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991                  of Community law concerning effective legal protection of
          laying down the health conditions for the                   rights under Community law.
          production and the placing on the market of
          fishery products, and                                       (!) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 .
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992
          laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels
          in accordance with Article 3 (1 ) (a) (i) of Directive
          91 /493/EEC,                                                Action brought on 14 October 1996 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against Industrial Refuse
     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                  and Coal Energy Limited
     Article 29 (1 ) of Directive 91 /67, the first paragraph                                 ( Case C-337/96 )
     of Article 15 of Directive 91 /492, the first paragraph
     of Article 18 of Directive 91 /493 and the first                                            ( 96/C 388/06 )
     paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 92/48;
                                                                      An action against Industrial Refuse and Coal Energy
2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                  Limited was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 14 October 1996 by the
(M OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                      by Mr Thomas F. Cusack, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                      assisted by Mr Fergus Randolph, Barrister, of the English
                                                                      Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal
Action brought on 10 October 1996 by the Commission                   Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          Case C-335 /96 )                            1 . order the defendant to pay the Commission the sum of
                           96/C 388/05 )                                  ECU 242 234 together with continuing interest for late
                                                                          payment at the rate of 8,15 % from 20 October 1993 ;
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                   2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
before the Court of Justice on 10 October 1996 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Hendrik Van Lier, Legal Adviser to the Commission,
and Dimitris Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, with an             The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos             recovery of financial support granted by the applicant to
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      the defendant for undertaking the conversion of an
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    existing transfer station to electrical power generation
                                                                      from the preparation of raw urban waste . The
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that,              Commission has withdrawn from the contract between the
by failing to take the necessary measures, within the                 parties, concluded under the law of England, because the
period prescribed, on public works procurement, to ensure             defendant has failed to comply with his obligations.
the correct application and effectiveness in practice of
Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of


title: Case T-527/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/68

         Action brought on 6 December 2012 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission
   (Case T-527/12)
   2013/C 26/133
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: DeMaCo Holland BV (Langedijk, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Linders and S. Bishop, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s claim admissible and well-founded;

               —

               consequently order Euratom to desist immediately from any use of the ‘redesign’ in respect of which the applicant has rights and, further, order Euratom to pay compensation to the applicant, provisionally estimated at EUR 100 000, on the basis of its non-contractual error;

               —

               order Euratom to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its claim the applicant seeks compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the non-contractual error of the European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the European Commission, inasmuch as it made use of technical drawings belonging to the applicant and transmitted those drawings for use in a public procurement procedure by the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy).
   In support of its action the applicant claims that the defendant unlawfully made use of the applicant’s technical drawings.
   The technical drawings created exclusively by the applicant — outside any contractual relationship between the parties — were used by the defendant without the applicant’s agreement. Furthermore, the defendant facilitated the use of the technical drawings by third parties, namely Fusion for Energy.
   The knowingly unlawful use by the defendant of the applicant’s technical drawings constitutes unlawful conduct and infringes the applicant’s copyright.
   The defendant has thus acquired an unauthorised economic advantage for itself on the basis of the applicant’s financial and intellectual efforts, which is contrary to fair commercial practice and fair competition.
   The damage suffered consists of the applicant’s loss of profit as a result of Fusion for Energy’s call for tenders, which was made possible as a result of the defendant’s intervention, and remuneration for the disregard of the applicant’s intellectual property rights.


title: Joined Cases C-18/05 and C-155/05: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione tributaria regionale di Firenze — Italy) — Casa di cura privata Salus SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4 (Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13.B(c) — Exemptions — Supplies of goods destined wholly for an exempted activity without being deductible)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione tributaria regionale di Firenze — Italy) — Casa di cura privata Salus SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4
   (Joined Cases C-18/05 and C-155/05) (1)

   (Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13.B(c) - Exemptions - Supplies of goods destined wholly for an exempted activity without being deductible)
   (2006/C 224/26)
   Language of the cases: Italian
   Referring Courts
   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli, Commissione tributaria regionale di Firenze
   Parties

      Applicants: Casa di cura privata Salus SpA (C-18/05), Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Firenze 1 (C-155/05)

      Defendants: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Napoli 4 (C-18/05), Villa Maria Beatrice Hospital Srl (C-155/05)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Interpretation of Article 13.B(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions within the territory of the country — Exemptions for supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted activity or which are not deductible — Direct applicability
   Operative part of the order
   The first part of Article 13.B(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides applies only to the resale of goods previously acquired by a taxable person for an exempted activity under that article, in so far as the value added tax paid upon initial acquisition of the goods in question was not deductible.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.

      OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, by direction of that court of 26 February 1997, in the case of T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as Howden Court Hotel against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-94/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 131 /9
Community, concerning organization of specific training               1 . On the proper interpretation of Article 26 , where in a
in general medical practice and other provisions relating                   single transaction a tour operator provides a service to the
to universities :                                                           traveller part of which is supplied to the tour operator by
                                                                            other taxable persons ('bought in') and part of which is
                                                                            supplied by the tour operator from its own resources ('in
1 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 93/16/                 house'), on what basis is the tour operator's margin under
      EEC f 1 ) of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free                      Article 26 (2 ) to be calculated ?
      movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of
      their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
      formal qualifications, in conjunction with Articles 3           2 . Is Article 26 to be interpreted as :
      and 23 and with the other provisions of Title IV of
      that Directive, be interpreted as meaning that the                    ( a ) requiring the apportionment of the total amount
      specific training in general medical practice cannot                        received by the tour operator from the traveller
      begin until after the person concerned has obtained,                        between bought in and in-house supplies by
      after at least six years' study, the diploma referred to                    reference to the costs of the components; or
      in Article 3 ?
                                                                            ( b ) as authorizing Member States to require
2 . Must Article 31 ( 1 ) ( d) of that Directive be interpreted                   apportionment by reference to such costs ( i )
      as meaning that the 'personal participation of the                          generally or ( ii ) in the case of operations of the
      trainee     in    the professional       activities   and                   kind in the issue in the present case;
      responsibilities of the persons with whom he works'
      requires the trainee to pursue the activities of a doctor                   or
      which are reserved to holders of the diplomas required
      by Articles 2 and 3 of the Directive ?
                                                                            (c ) as leaving such apportionment to be made in
                                                                                accordance with the normal principles for
3 . If so, must that same provision be interpreted as                             determining the taxable amount under Article 1 1 ?
      meaning that the trainee should pursue the activities of
      a doctor from the beginning of the specific training in         f 1 ) OJNoL 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
      general medical practice, whether that training is the
      full-time training laid down by Article 31 of the
      Directive or the part-time training laid down by
      Article 34 ?
H OJ NoL 165 , 7. 7. 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                      Action brought on 6 March 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-96/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/23 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, by direction of that court of 26 February 1997,             An action against the French Republic was brought before
in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Howden Court Hotel against the Commissioners of                       6 March 1997 by tfie Commission of the European
                       Customs and Excise                             Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright and
                                                                      Jean-Francois Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address
                          ( Case C-94/97)                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                            ( 97/C 131 /22                            de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and
 Duties Tribunal of 26 February 1997, which was received              — declare that, by failing to notify or to bring into force
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
 ruling in the case of T. R Madgett and R. M. Baldwin                        necessary in order to comply with Commission
 trading as Howden Court Hotel against the                                   Directive 91 /412/EEC of 23 July 1991 laying down
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                       the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing
 questions :                                                                 practice for veterinary medicinal products ( 1 ), the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under that Directive,
 If it is determined in Case C-308/96 that the provisions of
 Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive ( J ) apply to
 operations of the kind in issue in the present case:                  — order the French Republic to pay the costs .


title: Cases T-489/09, T-490/09 and T-56/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Leali and Acciaierie e Ferrieere Leali Luigi v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Legal basis — Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure — Fines — Duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Limitation period — Action for annulment — Amending decision — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Leali and Acciaierie e Ferrieere Leali Luigi v Commission
   (Cases T-489/09, T-490/09 and T-56/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Legal basis - Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Proportionality - Limitation period - Action for annulment - Amending decision - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 034/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Leali SpA (Odolo, Italy) (Cases T-489/09 and T-56/10); and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (Brescia, Italy) (Cases T-490/09 and T-56/10) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Cases T-489/09 and T-490/09, initially by R. Sauer and V. Di Bucci, subsequently by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and finally by R. Sauer and R. Striani, and, in Case T-56/10, initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer)

      Re:

   In Cases T-489/09 and T-490/09, applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), and in the alternative, applications for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, and in Case T-56/10, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, amending Decision C(2009) 7492 final.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-489/09, T-490/09 et T-56/10 be joined for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               In Case T-489/09, orders Leali SpA to pay the costs;

               4.

               In Case T-490/09, orders Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA to pay the costs;

               5.

               In Case T-56/10, orders Leali and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


C 7/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                    10.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/02 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-326/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 7/49)                                                      (2004/C 7/50)
By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            By order of 30 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
from the register of Case C-163/02: Commission of the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                register of Case C-326/02: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-161/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2012 — Anna Muzzio v A.S.L. Pavia and Others

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2012 — Anna Muzzio v A.S.L. Pavia and Others
   (Case C-161/12)
   2012/C 157/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anna Muzzio

      Defendants: A.S.L. Pavia and Others

      Question referred

   Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and the preservation of competition under Article 49 et seq TFEU preclude national legislation which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and entered in the relevant professional register but does not own a pharmacy on the ‘pianta organica’ [territorial grid], also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, pharmaceutical products which are subject to a prescription in the form of a ‘ricetta bianca’ — that is to say, pharmaceutical products the cost of which is borne not by the [national health service] but wholly by the citizen — and which accordingly also establishes in that sector a prohibition on the sale of certain categories of pharmaceutical product, as well as a quota in relation to the number of commercial outlets which may be established in the national territory?


title: Joined Cases C-33/12 and C-38/12: Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság — (Hungary)) — Körös-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-33/12), Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-38/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság — (Hungary)) — Körös-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-33/12), Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (C-38/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Joined Cases C-33/12 and C-38/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/26
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case C-255/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by judgment of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against the Minister for Development, the Soma Orkoton Elegkton and Others

text:
C 289/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
2.   Would it not be an alternative more compatible with                        registered, the holder commits an offence when driving a
     fundamental rights to restrict the obligation to disclose                  motor vehicle in the Netherlands?
     company data to undertakings for which independent
     auditors have found problems with specific data of
     the undertaking and hence a special public need for                   2.   Does national legislation such as that described in the
     information?                                                               first question and which has the consequences set out
                                                                                therein constitute a restriction on the free movement of
                                                                                persons and, if so, can that restriction be justified by the
3.   Are the disclosure obligations in the First and Fourth                     consideration that it enables the data featured on the
     Directives compatible with the fundamental rights under                    document to be regularly renewed and the document to
     the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?                                be adjusted to technological improvements as regards the
                                                                                requirements which the document should meet from the
                                                                                point of view of security and prevention of fraud?
4.   Did the data protection directive, telecommunications
     directive and administrative assistance directive derogate
     substantively from the disclosure directives?
                                                                           (1) OJ 1991, L 237, p. 1.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 41.
(2) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                           Epikratias by judgment of that court of 12 June 2001 in
                                                                           the case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against
                                                                           the Minister for Development, the Soma Orkoton
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-                                           Elegkton and Others
mentsrechtbank Rotterdam by judgment of that court of
27 June 2001 in the case of S. Klip-Krüger against Board
of the Dienst Wegverkeer, a public agency having legal                                               (Case C-255/01)
                             personality
                                                                                (2001/C 289/19)
                          (Case C-253/01)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2001/C 289/18)                                  European Communities by judgment of the Simvoulio tis
                                                                           Epikratias (Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case of Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others against the Minister
European Communities by judgment of the Arrondissements-                   for Development, the Soma Orkoton Elegkton (Institute of
rechtbank Rotterdam (District Court, Rotterdam) of 27 June                 Certified Auditors) and Others on the following questions:
2001, received at the Court Registry on 2 July 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of S. Klip-Krüger v Board of the
Dienst Wegverkeer (road traffic authority), a public agency                a)   May the national legislature, on the basis of Article 15 of
having legal personality, on the following questions:                           the Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April
                                                                                1984 (1), make use of the power provided for by that
                                                                                article and provide for the possibility for various catego-
1.   Must the Directive (1) — more particularly Article 1(1)                    ries of persons to be approved to audit accounting
     and (2) thereof — be interpreted as meaning that national                  documents, in derogation from the permanent rules,
     legislation adopted in implementation thereof is consist                   that is to say without first sitting an examination of
     with it where under that legislation an obligation exists                  professional competence, when the Member State in
     or arises for the holder of a driving licence issued by the                question has already, before the adoption of the directive,
     competent authority in the Federal Republic of Germany,                    laid down that examination in national law? In any event,
     which is valid for the holder’s lifetime, to exchange that                 may the national legislature make repeated use of the
     licence within one year of moving his normal place of                      power to adopt transitional provisions on the basis of the
     residence to the Netherlands, because a driving licence                    abovementioned article of the directive, in particular after
     issued more than ten years previously cannot be registered                 the deadline of 1 January 1991 (Article 15 in conjunction
     in the Netherlands and, if the driving licence is not                      with Article 30(2) of the directive)?
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/11
b)   Does Article 11 of the Directive simply mean that, if a                  eligible to join the Scheme can comply with the require-
     candidate for approval to audit accounting documents in                  ment of being employed under a contract of employment,
     a Member State of the European Union has obtained,                       and by establishing that the requirement is not objectively
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation,                     justified?
     some of the required qualifications in another Member
     State, the Member State from which approval is sought
     regards those qualifications as having been obtained in
     that same State and does not introduce an exception to
     the generally applicable rule that approval is granted only
     after an examination of professional competence has
     been passed? Or is it to be interpreted as allowing a
     person holding an approval to audit accounting docu-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
     ments which has been granted to him in a Member State              Bari — Sezione distaccata di Altamura, by order of that
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation to             court of 28 June 2001 in the case of Walter Ferro against
     receive the corresponding approval in another Member                                       Giovanni Santoro
     State without being obliged to sit an examination of
     professional competence, but just on a simple finding                                       (Case C-273/01)
     that his qualifications are equivalent?
                                                                                (2001/C 289/21)
(1) OJ L 126, 12.5.1984, p. 20.                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari —
                                                                        Sezione distaccata di Altamura (Bari District Court, Altamura
                                                                        Division) of 28 June 2001, which was received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of Walter Ferro against Giovanni Santoro on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘whether Directive 86/653/EEC (1) on the coordination of the
                                                                        laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commer-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               cial agents and, in any event, the principles of Community law
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court              of freedom of movement and the freedom to provide services
of 22 June 2001, in the case of Debra Allonby against 1)                are to be interpreted as being compatible with national
Accrington & Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing                 legislation which makes the right of brokers to payment for
Services, 3) Secretary of State for Education and Employ-               services conditional upon their being entered in the appropri-
                               ment                                     ate register.’
                        (Case C-256/01)                                 (1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
                                                                            coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                            employed commercial agents OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
                        (2001/C 289/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 June 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
ruling in the case of Debra Allonby against 1) Accrington &             (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001,
Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing Services, 3) Sec-            in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of
retary of State for Education and Employment, on the follow-                                   Customs and Excise
ing questions:
                                                                                (Case C-275/01)
1.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to enable a
     woman to claim equal pay with a man in the circum-                                          (2001/C 289/22)
     stances of this case?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to entitle               European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     Mrs Allonby to claim access to the pension scheme either           (United Kingdom) of 7 June 2001, which was received at the
     (i) by comparing herself with Mr Johnson or (ii) by                Court Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     showing statistically that a considerably smaller pro-             case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
     portion of female than of male teachers who are otherwise          and Excise, on the following question: