title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2003 in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the SLOM holding — Limitation period — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 124/20                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.5.2003
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)                     2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application as inadmissible.
— application for, first, annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 29 July 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of                     3.     Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs,
recruitment at Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily                           half of the costs incurred by the applicant.
subsistence allowance and, secondly, for an order requiring
the Commission to pay the applicant the amounts correspond-                    4.     Orders the applicant to bear half of his costs.
ing to her entitlement stemming from her place of recruitment
being fixed at Rome — the Court of First Instance (Single-                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.7.2002.
judge Chamber); Blanca Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a
judgment on 5 March 2003, in which it:
1.     dismisses the application;
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                               in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the Euro-
                                                                               pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties ( 1)
                                                                               (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                                                                               Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the
                                                                               SLOM holding — Limitation period — No need to adjudi-
                                                                                cate)
                           of 13 March 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 124/36)
in Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Officials — Decision to institute disciplinary proceedings
— Decision rejecting a request for transfer to the European                    In Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma, residing in Engelbert (Nether-
       Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction)                         lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-
                                                                               horst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                               against Council of the European Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert)
                            (2003/C 124/35)
                                                                               and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van
                                                                               Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — application for compensation under
                      (Language of the case: French)                           Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of
                                                                               Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                               result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by
In Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa, official of the                   virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Lisbon,                    1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy
represented by J.N. Louis, E. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers,                  referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                        milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F.                    supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84
Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Waelbroeck) — application for                       of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of 3 July                  of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
2001 to institute disciplinary proceedings against the applicant               (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First
and, second, of its decision of 23 July 2001 rejecting the                     Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
request of the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for                  R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Drugs and Drug Addiction that the applicant be transferred to                  made an order on 20 March 2003, the operative part of which
that body — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                       is as follows:
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                  1.     There is no longer any need to adjudicate.
given a judgment on 13 March 2003 in which it:
                                                                               2.     The defendant is to bear its own costs.
1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2001
       rejecting the request of the Director of the European Monitoring        (1 ) OJ 1994 C 90.
       Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that the applicant be
       transferred to that body.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-226/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Siples Srl, in liquidation v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (Common Customs Code — Appeals — Suspension of implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 161/3
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              e Penale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), Italy for a
court between Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Friedrich Stefan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich — on              court between Kofisa Italia Srl and Ministero delle Finanze,
the interpretation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now                      Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia
Article 56 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                         di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA — on the
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet                     interpretation of Articles 243 and 244 of Council Regulation
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;                  (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,               Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2001,                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
in which it has ruled:                                                       Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
1.    Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) is to be              General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      construed as precluding the application of national rules such         has given a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it has
      as those at issue in the main proceedings, requiring a mortgage        ruled:
      securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member
      State to be registered in the national currency.                       1.    Article 243 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
                                                                                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
2.    Article 73b of the Treaty is to be construed as meaning that it              is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for national law to
      did not apply in Austria prior to the date of accession of the               determine whether a trader must initially lodge an appeal before
      Republic of Austria to the European Union.                                   the customs authority or whether he may appeal directly to the
                                                                                judicial authority.
3.    Article 73b of the Treaty is to be construed as incapable of
      remedying, with effect from the entry into force of the EC Treaty      2.    Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as
      in Austria, a mortgage registration which, under the relevant                meaning that it confers the power to suspend implementation
      national law, is vitiated from the outset by absolute and                    of a contested decision exclusively on the customs authorities.
      incurable nullity such as to render that registration non-existent.          However, that provision does not limit the power of the judicial
                                                                                authorities seised of a dispute pursuant to Article 243 of that
                                                                                regulation to order such suspension in order to comply with
(1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.                                                            their obligation to ensure the full effectiveness of Community
                                                                                law.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 January 2001
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-1/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Kofisa                                              of 11 January 2001
Italia Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della Riscos-
sione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di Genova —                        in Case C-226/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
             San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (1)                            the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Genova (Italy)]: Siples Srl,
                                                                             in liquidation v Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the                    Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione Provincia di
Court — National legislation adopting Community pro-                               Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA (1)
visions — Community Customs Code — Appeal — Manda-
tory nature of the two stages of the appeal — Suspension of                  (Common Customs Code — Appeals — Suspension of
   implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)                     implementation of a decision of the customs authorities)
                           (2001/C 161/05)                                                              (2001/C 161/06)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-1/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  In Case C-226/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           2.6.2001
e Penale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), Italy, for a                     the Commission — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
court between Siples Srl, in lı̀quidation, and Ministero delle               J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Finanze, Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione                Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
Provincia di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA —                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January
on the interpretation of Article 244 of Council Regulation                   2001, in which it:
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court                     1.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) to pay the Com-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                      mission of the European Communities the sum of
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                          EUR 211 307 , together with interest at the agreed rate from
and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                            21 December 1991 until the debt is paid in full;
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it has                     2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
ruled:
                                                                             3.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) to pay the costs.
Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted
as meaning that it confers the power to suspend implementation of a          (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
contested decision exclusively on the customs authorities. However,
that provision does not limit the power of the judicial authorities
seised of a dispute pursuant to Article 243 of that regulation to order
such suspension in order to comply with their obligation to ensure
the full effectiveness of Community law.
(1) OJ C 246, 28.8.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     in Case C-41/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract)
                          of 16 January 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 161/08)
in Case C-40/98: Commission of the European Communi-
          ties v Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract)
                            (2001/C 161/07)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             In Case C-41/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro) v Teenologie Vetroresina
                                                                             SpA (TVR) (Agent: G. Merla) — application by the Commission
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       under Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC) for
                     in the European Court Reports)                          an order requiring Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, first, to
                                                                             reimburse an advance payment of ECU 77 558,80 made by
In Case C-40/98: Commission of the European Communities                      the Commission under Contract No BREU-0114-I(A), together
(Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro) v Tecnologie Vetroresina              with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990, and,
SpA (TVR) (Agent: G. Merla) — application by the Commission                  second, to pay damages of ECU 7 700 in respect of the harm
under Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC)                      sustained by the Commission — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
against Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA for reimbursement of the                  composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
sum of ECU 211 307 advanced by the Commission under                          Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Contract No 3440/1/0/187/91/6-BCR-I(30), together with                       Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
interest at the agreed rate from 21 December 1991, and                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
damages of ECU 20 000 in respect of the harm sustained by                    16 January 2001, in which it:


title: Case F-16/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Augenault and Others v Council

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/68

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Augenault and Others v Council
   (Case F-16/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/135)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 38.


title: Case C-152/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
   (Case C-152/17)
   (2017/C 213/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA

      Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Is the interpretation of national law that excludes review of prices in contracts relating to ‘special sectors’, particularly as regards those with a different object from those to which the Directive 2004/17 (1) refers, but that are connected with those sectors by an instrumental link, compatible with EU law (in particular, Article 3(3) TEU, Articles 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and Directive 2004/17?

               (2)

               Is Directive 2004/17 (if it should be considered that exclusion of revision of prices in all contracts concluded and applied within ‘special sectors’ arises directly therefrom) compatible with the principles of the European Union (in particular Articles 3(1) TEU, 26, 56 to 58 and 101 TFEU, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), ‘in the light of the unfairness, disproportionality, and distortion of contractual balance and, therefore, of the rules governing an efficient market’?

      (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


title: Appeal brought on 3 April 1998 by Edouard Dubois et Fils SA against the judgment delivered on 29 January 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-113/96 between Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, on the one hand, and Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, on the other (Case C-95/98 P)

text:
C 166/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.5.98
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) (the                   continue to manufacture and market product X
Trade Mark Directive') that Member States are precluded                       in Member States other than Member State B?
from introducing or maintaining a legal position whereby
trade mark rights are exhausted where the trade mark is            2. To what extent is it relevant to the answer to
marketed outside the Community under that mark?                         Question 1 that:
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.                                         (i)    the marketing authorisation for medicinal
                                                                               product X ceased to have effect in Member State
                                                                               B as a result of voluntary surrender on the part
                                                                               of the person to whom it had been granted; and/
                                                                               or
                                                                        (ii)   the formulation of medicinal product Y was
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional                           developed and introduced in order to provide a
Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                       benefit to public health which medicinal product
31 July 1997, in the case of The Queen against The                             X (manufactured according to a different
Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act                           formulation) does not provide; and/or
1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte:
     1) Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Ltd 2) May & Baker Ltd.                     (iii) that benefit to public health would not be
                       (Case C-94/98)                                          achieved if product X and product Y are both on
                                                                               the market in Member State B at the same time;
                        (98/C 166/12)
                                                                               and/or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (iv) the differences between the formulations of
European Communities by an order of the Divisional                             medicinal product X and medicinal product Y
Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 31 July 1997, which                          are such that neither product may lawfully be
was received at the Court Registry on 1 April 1998, for a                      marketed under the marketing authorisation
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against The                        applicable to the other; and/or
Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act
1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte:                (v)    the competent authority possesses the relevant
1) Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Ltd 2) May & Baker Ltd, on the                          data required under Directive 65/65/CEE in
following questions:                                                           relation to both product X and product Y; and/or
                                                                        (vi) the competent authority considers that the
1. In a case where medicinal product X is sought to be                         prohibition on imports of product X from
    imported from Member State A into Member State B,                          Member State A would have the effect of
    is it permissible for the person who proposes to place                     partitioning the market; and/or
    the imported product upon the market in Member
    State B to seek and obtain a marketing authorisation                (vii) the competent authority considers that there are
    from the competent authority in Member State B                             no grounds within Article 36 of the EC Treaty
    without complying with the requirements of Council                         which would justify a prohibition on imports
    Directive 65/65/EEC (1) (as amended) if:                                   and sales of product X?
    (i)   medicinal product X is the subject of a marketing        (1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the
          authorisation granted in Member State A and was              approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
          the subject of a marketing authorisation which               administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
          has ceased to have effect in Member State B; and             products (OJ 22 of 9.2.1965, p. 369 (SE SER1 (65Ð66)
                                                                       p. 20)).
    (ii) medicinal product X has the same active
          ingrediens and therapeutic effect as medicinal
          product Y, but is not manufactured according to
          the same formulation as medicinal product Y; and
    (iii) medicinal product Y is the subject of a marketing        Appeal brought on 3 April 1998 by Edouard Dubois et
          authorisation granted in Member State B, but is          Fils SA against the judgment delivered on 29 January
          not the subject of a marketing authorisation             1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
          granted in Member State A; and                           of the European Communities in Case T-113/96 between
                                                                   Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, on the one hand, and Council
    (iv) the marketing authorisations referred to in (i) and       of the European Union and Commission of the European
          (iii) above were granted to different members of                             Communities, on the other
          the same group of companies and the                                              (Case C-95/98 P)
          manufacturers of medicinal products X and Y are
                                                                                (98/C 166/13)
          also members of that group of companies; and
    (v) companies within the same group as the holder of           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 January
          the marketing authorisation for product X                1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- 30.5.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 166/9
of the European Communities in Case T-113/96 between                Action brought on 3 April 1998 by the Commission of the
Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, on the one hand, and Council                 European Communities against the French Republic
of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                (Case C-96/98)
Communities, on the other, was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 1998                                       (98/C 166/14)
by Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, represented by Pierre
Ricard, avocat before the French Conseil d'EÂtat and Cour
de Cassation, and Alain Crosson de Cormier, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               An action against the French Republic was brought before
Chambers of Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde.                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    3 April 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-Castera, national civil
                                                                    servant on secondment to that service, acting as Agents,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,            Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    with all the legal consequences entailed thereby;
Ð declare the defendants liable under the second                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
    paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty for the damage           that the Court should:
    caused to it by the repercussions on its activities as an
    authorised customs agent;
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the special measures
                                                                        necessary for the conservation of bird habitats in the
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the                 Marais Poitevin and the appropriate steps to avoid
    sum of FF 112 339 702 by way of compensation for                    deterioration of those habitats, the French Republic
    that damage;                                                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of
                                                                        Directive 79/409/EEC (1);
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments:
On the question of no-fault liability, the Court of First
Instance erred in holding that the cause of the damage was
the Single European Act and the establishment of an area
without internal frontiers to which it led. New obligations         Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
to act were imposed at the time on the Community                    2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds lays down
institutions, particularly in respect of the introduction of        the obligation to classify the most suitable territories as
compensatory support measures to facilitate the                     Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the conservation of the
adaptation of the profession of customs agent.                      habitats of the species to which the Directive applies;
                                                                    Article 4(4) lays down the obligation to take appropriate
                                                                    steps to avoid deterioration of the habitats in the
On the question of liability for fault, the Court of First          protection areas. According to the case-law of the
Instance erred in holding that there was no legal                   Court (2), the latter obligation applies not only to
obligation to act incumbent on the institutions and that,           territories actually classified as SPAs, but also to territories
therefore, the failure to take appropriate measures could           which should have been so classified.
not give rise to liability and on the part of the
Community. The institutions chose to act by adopting
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December                  The territory of the Marais Poitevin classified as an SPA is
1992 to adapt the profession of customs agent to the                insufficient. An area of 29 790 hectares is currently
internal market (1). That action on the part of the                 classified as such. That classification took place late, in
institutions was, however, very piecemeal and inadequate.           stages and after 1991. According to the most relevant
The Court of First Instance also erred in holding that              scientific data available, however, namely the inventory of
there was, in any event, no breach of a higher rule of the          Zones Importantes pour la Conservation des Oiseaux
law for the protection of individuals. There was a breach           (important areas for the conservation of birds) (ZIOC),
of the principle of vested rights as the profession of              published in 1994 by the French Ministry of the
customs agent had been recognised by Community                      Environment, 77 980 hectares exhibit the objective
legislation.                                                        characteristics justifying classification as an SPA. The
                                                                    inadequate nature of the appropriate steps intended to
(1) OJ L 394 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                   avoid deterioration of the habitats is due to the absence of
                                                                    suitable protective measures and to interference with and
                                                                    disturbances of natural habitats, in particular, the
                                                                    disappearance of natural water meadows as they are


title: Case C-599/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — SAG ELV Slovensko a.s., FELA Management AG, ASCOM (Schweiz) AG, Asseco Central Europe a.s., TESLA Stropkov a.s., Autostrade per l’Italia SpA, EFKON AG, Stalexport Autostrady SA v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie (Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Contract award procedures — Restricted call for tenders — Assessment of the tender — Requests by the contracting authority for clarification of the tender — Conditions)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — SAG ELV Slovensko a.s., FELA Management AG, ASCOM (Schweiz) AG, Asseco Central Europe a.s., TESLA Stropkov a.s., Autostrade per l’Italia SpA, EFKON AG, Stalexport Autostrady SA v Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie
   (Case C-599/10) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Contract award procedures - Restricted call for tenders - Assessment of the tender - Requests by the contracting authority for clarification of the tender - Conditions)
   2012/C 151/13
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SAG ELV Slovensko a.s., FELA Management AG, ASCOM (Schweiz) AG, Asseco Central Europe a.s., TESLA Stropkov a.s., Autostrade per l’Italia SpA, EFKON AG, Stalexport Autostrady SA

      Defendant: Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie

      In the presence of: Národná dial’ničná spoločnost’ a.s.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) and, in particular, of Articles 2, 51 and 55 thereof — Possible obligation on the awarding authority to request clarification of a tender in case of need — Extent of that obligation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 55 of 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 must be interpreted as requiring the inclusion in national legislation of a provision such as Article 42(3) of Slovak Law No 25/2006 on public procurement, in the version applicable in the main proceedings, which, in essence, provides that if a tenderer offers an abnormally low price, the contracting authority must ask it in writing to clarify its price proposal. It is for the national court to ascertain, having regard to all the documents in the file placed before it, whether the request for clarification enabled the tenderer concerned to provide a sufficient explanation of the composition of its tender;

               2.

               Article 55 of Directive 2004/18 precludes a contracting authority from taking the view that it is not required to ask a tenderer to clarify an abnormally low price;

               3.

               Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 does not preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 42(2) of the abovementioned Law No 25/2006, according to which, in essence, the contracting authority may ask tenderers in writing to clarify their tenders without, however, requesting or accepting any amendment to the tenders. In the exercise of the discretion thus enjoyed by the contracting authority, that authority must treat the various tenderers equally and fairly, in such a way that a request for clarification cannot appear unduly to have favoured or disadvantaged the tenderer or tenderers to which the request was addressed, once the procedure for selection of tenders has been completed and in the light of its outcome.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-181/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment — Actions for damages)

text:
C 44/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 12 December 2002                                                        of 12 December 2002
in Case T-164/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the                      in Case T-181/00: Carmelo Morello v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                  European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement                (Officials — Procedure for filling vacant posts — Statement
of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and                     of reasons — Comparative examination of applicants and
equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —                     equal treatment of officials — Actions for annulment —
                       Actions for damages)                                                       Actions for damages)
                          (2003/C 44/43)                                                             (2003/C 44/44)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-181/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-
In Case T-164/00: Carmelo Morello, an official of the Com-                 mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                 represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,
represented by J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, Lawyers,                 with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-                  Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of
Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of                   the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to
the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the              the post of Head of Unit 1 ‘Post and telecommunications,
post of Head of Unit 2 ‘Basic industries’ within Directorate E             information society coordination’ within Directorate C ‘Infor-
‘Cartels, basic industries and energy’ within the Directorate-             mation, communication and multimedia’ within the Director-
General for Competition (COM/091/00) and of its decision to                ate-General for Competition (COM/090/99) and of its decision
appoint a different applicant to the post and an application for           to appoint a different applicant to the post and an application
damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                     for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
                                                                           composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the              Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:               Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;              1.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5 000;
2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;                              2.     Dismissed the remainder of the action;
3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                            3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                (1 ) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-357/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v SONAE Distribuição SGPS SA

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/14

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 5 February 2004
   in Case C-357/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo):
         Fazenda Pública
       v
         SONAE Distribuição SGPS SA

       (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Tax on over-the-counter share transfers)
   (2004/C 94/28)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-357/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) (Portugal) in the proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda Pública and SONAE Distribuição SGPS SA for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Second Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A.Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar made an order on 5 February 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Articles 11 and 12 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, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the imposition of a tax on over-the-counter share transfers where the amount of the tax increases directly, and without an upper limit, in proportion to the amount of the underlying transaction.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002


title: Case C-121/09: Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/29

         Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-121/09)
   2009/C 141/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and C. Cattabriga, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC; (1)

               —

               an order that the Italian Republic should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By fixing a period of three months from the foreseen date of the end of travel for the purpose of making an application for action by the Guarantee Fund for package travel consumers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of Directive 90/314.

               2.

               Article 7 of Directive 90/314 provides that the organiser and/or retailer party to the contract is to provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency. According to the interpretation given in Community case-law, that provision imposes an obligation of result on the Member States, which entails affording the purchaser of package travel the right to effective protection against the risks of the organisers’ insolvency and, in particular, the refunding of sums paid over and repatriation.

               3.

               Next, Article 8 allows Member States to adopt more stringent provisions, but only if the latter offer greater consumer protection.

               4.

               In the instant case, the object of the Italian legislation in question, according to information sent by the national authorities during the infringement procedure, is to ensure that the State budget has the opportunity of recovering sums paid to consumers and so of preserving the State’s financial interests instead of ensuring greater protection for the purchasers of package travel.

               5.

               Although the Commission understands that Italy has an interest in ensuring the proper balanced running of the Guarantee Fund, making it easier for the latter to bring an action for indemnity against the tour operator, it takes the view that such a measure, by imposing an absolute limit on the presentation of the application for action by the Fund, introduces a condition capable of depriving the consumer of the rights guaranteed by Directive 90/314.

               6.

               It is true, as the Italian authorities maintain, that consumers may make their application for action by the Fund as soon as they are aware of circumstances that threaten to prevent the performance of the contract. However, in order to avail themselves of that opportunity they must be aware of those circumstances. Excluding those cases in which the travel organiser’s insolvency is obvious, by reason of a declaration of insolvency, in most cases consumers do not know the exact financial situation of the operator. It is therefore reasonable that they should in the first place turn to the operator to obtain repayment of sums paid, sending it a letter, perhaps a reminder, and finally an order to pay. In that manner there is a risk that the period of three months fixed by Article 5 of Ministerial Decree No 349/1999 may already have long elapsed when the application is made for action by the Fund, with the result that consumers are deprived of the right to obtain the refund of the sums paid.

               7.

               To remedy the infringement alleged in these proceedings, the Italian authorities declared, first, that they wished to extend from three to 12 months the period in which the application may be made and then that they intended to abolish it.

               8.

               In addition, they published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic a communication informing potentially interested persons that, pending abolition of the period in question, for the purposes of ensuring consumer protection applications may be made to the Guarantee Fund at any time.

               9.

               The Commission considers that such measures, while a laudable attempt to make good the consequences of the infringement complained of, do not do enough to eliminate the risk that purchasers of package travel may be deprived of their right to effective protection in the event of the organiser’s insolvency.

               10.

               For the purpose of fully ensuring legal certainty, so enabling individuals to know the full extent of their rights and to rely on them before the courts, the provisions of a directive must be given effect with unquestionable force, precision and clarity and not by means of mere administrative practices which, by their nature, are alterable at will by the national authorities.

               11.

               The coexistence, in the Italian legal order, of a provision, never formally repealed, prescribing a period of three months beyond which the introduction of an application for the Fund to take action will not be valid, on the one hand, and an administrative communication inviting the public to take no notice of that time-limit, on the other, clearly creates a situation of uncertainty for purchasers of package travel.

      (1)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).


title: Action brought on 29 June 1995 by Francisca Soto Revaliente against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-135/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95            I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/23
Action brought on 22 June 1995 by Dysan Magnetics                              complainants account for at least 25 % of total
Limited and Review Magnetics (Macao ) Limited against the                      production of 3,5" disks .
           Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-134/95 )                               (') OJ No C 84, 6 . 4 . 1995, p . 4 .
                           ( 95/C 229/50 )
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Action brought on 29 June 1995 by Francisca Soto
                                                                         Revaliente against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                                  Case T-135 /95 )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                 ( 95/C 229/51 )
Instance of the European Communities on 22 June 1995 by
Dysan Magnetics Limited and Review Magnetics ( Macao )                                   (Language of the case: French)
Limited, represented by Mark Clough and Mark Brealey,
Barristers, instructed by Rosenblatt, Solicitors, with an                An action against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, L-1661 .                                       Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 1995 by
                                                                         Francisca Soto Revaliente, residing at Malaga ( Spain ),
                                                                         represented by Jean-Francois Neven, of the Brussels Bar,
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich.
— annul the decision of 6 April 1995 to initiate                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
      anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
      magnetic disks ( 3,5" micro disks ) originating in Canada,         — annul the decision of 6 September 1994, as confirmed by
      Indonesia, Macao and Thailand ( J ),                                    the decision of the Commission notified on 4 April 1995 ,
                                                                              as set out in the complaint,
— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
      these proceedings .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant challenges the Commission's decision to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      consider her absence during the period running from
                                                                         6 March to 25 October 1994 to be irregular and not to pay
                                                                         to her the remuneration for that period pursuant to
The applicants submit that the contested decision is                     Article 60 of the Staff Regulations . She considers that that
unlawful for two reasons :                                               decision is vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons
                                                                         and has been taken contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the
                                                                         Staff Regulations .
( a ) The decision is in breach of Article 5 ( 7 ) of Regulation
        ( EC ) No 3283/94, which provides that 'a complaint              The applicant points out in that respect that the
       shall be rejected where there is insufficient evidence of          Commission's decision is based on an alleged medical
       either dumping or injury to justify proceeding with the           check-up which purportedly was carried out on 16 March
       case'. The complaint, which was made by a small group              1994, whereas no medical check-up intended to verify her
        of Community disc manufacturers, was based on                     fitness for work took place at that time . Although she in fact
        unsubstantiated allegations . Indeed, for the most part,          underwent on that date an examination by a board of
        it was an exact copy of an earlier complaint made by the          experts entrusted by the Commission to verify her fitness to
        same producers; the only difference was that the                  travel to Brussels with a view to being heard in the context of
        countries had been changed.                                       a disciplinary procedure, and although it considered that the
                                                                          disease from which the applicant suffered did not make it
                                                                          impossible for her to travel to Brussels, the board did not,
 ( b ) The decision is contrary to Article 5 ( 4 ) of Regulation          however, make a decision in respect of her fitness to
        ( EC ) No 3283/94, which provides that 'an investigation          work .
        shall not be initiated . . . unless it has been determined
        that the complaint has been made by or on behalf of the           In those circumstances, the applicant considers that the
        Community industry' and 'no investigation shall be                contested decision was taken in the absence of a prior
        initiated when Community producers expressly                      medical check-up regarding her fitness for work and that,
        supporting a complaint account for less than 25 % of              therefore, it is contrary to Article 60 of the Staff
        total production of the like product produced by the              Regulations, on the basis of the concept of ' unauthorized
         Community industry'. The Commission has not made a               absence which is duly established'.
         lawful determination that the complaint is made on
         behalf of the Community industry, nor that the


title: Case T-444/09: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert (citydogs) (Community trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Applicant’s failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/7

         Order of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert (citydogs)
   (Case T-444/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 209/11
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: La City (La Courneuve, France) (represented initially by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner and R. Pethke, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert (Engelskirchen, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 233/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between (1) La City and (2) Mr Andreas Bücheler and Ms Konstanze Ewert.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               La City, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Mr Andreas Bücheler and Ms Konstanze Ewert shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-251/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — György Balázs v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Quality of diesel fuels — National technical specification imposing additional quality requirements compared to EU law)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — György Balázs v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-251/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Quality of diesel fuels - National technical specification imposing additional quality requirements compared to EU law))
   (2015/C 406/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: György Balázs

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 4(1) and 5 of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from laying down in its national law quality requirements that are additional to the ones contained in that directive for the marketing of diesel fuels, such as that relating to the flash point at issue in the main proceedings, since it does not constitute a technical specification of diesel fuels relating to the protection of health and the environment for the purposes of that directive.

               2.

               Article 1(6) and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from making a national standard such as Hungarian standard MSZ EN 590:2009 at issue in the main proceedings mandatory.

               3.

               Article 1(6) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/96, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national standard within the meaning of that provision to be made available in the official language of the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-482/15: Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/40

         Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Ahrend Furniture v Commission
   (Case T-482/15)
   (2015/C 337/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahrend Furniture (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce, V. Dor and S. Engelen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of the decision of the Commission of unknown date awarding lot 1 of call for tender OIB.DR.2/PO/2014/055/622 — ‘Supply of furniture’ to another tenderer;

               —

               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 that the defendant made errors of fact and of law during the qualitative and technical analysis of the applicant’s tender.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant was not informed, despite requests for same, of particulars relating to the financial evaluation of the tenders.


title: Case C-507/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2016 — ‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2016 — ‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
      (Case C-507/16)
      (2016/C 441/16)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Administrativen sad Sofia grad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant:‘Еntertainment Balgaria System’ ЕООD

         Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 214 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the right to deduct input tax, different weight is to be attached to the cases of registration for the purposes of value added tax, or does Article 214 of that directive preclude the Member States from attaching differing weight to the cases of registration, as is the position under Articles 97а and 70(4) of the ZDDS?

                  2.

                  Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has been registered pursuant to Article 214(1)(e) of that directive is not entitled to deduct input tax declared by him in respect of supplies to him of services carried out by taxable persons from other Member States if he uses those supplies in order to provide services in other Member States and the other substantive and procedural conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct are satisfied?

                  3.

                  Are Articles 168(а) and 169(а) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 70(4) of the ZDDS, under which a taxable person who has been registered for purposes of value added tax pursuant to Article 214(1)(d) or (e) of that directive, and not pursuant to Article 214(1)(a) thereof, has under no circumstances a right to deduct input tax?

         (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
      (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 28 February 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-52/95)

text:
8 . 4 . 95            I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 87/7
     down a procedure to be applied in the future for the               with the Directive referred to in the form of order sought by
     classification of new items, without departing from the            the Commission.
     method applicable pursuant to Article 203 (4 ) and ( 6 ),
     the three institutions concerned established a framework
                                                                        (!) OJ No L 357, 7. 12 . 1989, p. 31 .
     with which they are not entitled unilaterally to interfere.
     Although the Council agreed in 1993 , at the request of
     the other arm of the budgetary authority, thereafter to
     consider headings 2 and 3 of the agricultural
     expenditure items as non-compulsory expenditure, the
     expenditure linked to the Agricultural Guarantee Fund
     (that is to say, that set out in subsection B1 — EAGGF of          Action brought on 28 February 1995 by the Commission of
     the budget) remains compulsory expenditure in                        the European Communities against the French Republic
     accordance with the 1982 classification.
                                                                                (Case C-52/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/14
(!) OJ No L 369, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
(2 ) OJ No C 194, 28 . 7. 1982, p . 1 .
(3 ) OJ No C 331 , 7. 12 . 1993 , p . 1 .                               An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        28 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                            Luxembourg                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-46/95 )
                                                                         1 . declare that,
                            ( 95/C 87/13
                                                                              — by not provisionally prohibiting the fishing by its
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                               vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES zone VIII so as to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                               ensure compliance with the fishing quotas allocated
Communities on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of                              to it in 1991 and 1992, and
the European Communities, represented by Thomas F.                            — by not taking action against the persons responsible
Cusack, acting as Agent, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, with an                       for fishing and fishing-related activities carried out
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios                       in respect of such stocks following the imposition of
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                the fishing prohibition enacted by the Commission
                                                                                in 1991 and 1992,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                 under Article 11 (2 ) and Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC )
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to                      No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for
     implement Council Directive 8 9/6 18/Euratom f 1 ) of                    fishing activities ( a ) in conjunction with Article 3 of, and
     27 November 1989 on informing the general public                         the Annexes to, Regulations (EEC) No 3926/90 (2) and
     about health protection measures to be applied and steps                 (EEC ) No 3882/91 (3 ).
     to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, or
     by failing to inform the Commission of the measures                 2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     taken by it to comply with the said directive, the Grand
     Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     under the Treaty establishing the European Atomic
     Energy Community,
                                                                         It is clear from the wording of Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation
                                                                         ( EEC ) No 2241/87 that the Member States are required to
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                         take the necessary measures in order provisionally to
     costs .
                                                                         prohibit all fishing activities before the quota is exhausted.
                                                                        The French authorities have at no time taken any measures
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      provisionally to halt the fishing in question.
Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a Directive          The Commission further considers that the continuation by
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each             French vessels of fishing and fishing-related activities in
Member State, requires the Member States to observe the                  relation to the fish stocks at issue following the imposition
time limits for transposition laid down in Directives.                   of the fishing prohibitions enacted by the Commission in
Although the time limit in the present case expired on                   1991 and 1992 constitutes an infringement by the persons
27 November 1991 , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                     responsible for those vessels. Having established such
not adopted the provisions necessary in order to comply                  infringements, the French authorities were required, under
 ---pagebreak--- No C 87/8            ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 4 . 95
 Article 1 of Regulation (EEC ) No 2241/87, not only to                     Removal from the register of Case C-146/94 ( )
 diligently to take all control measures necessary in order to                                    ( 95/C 87/16 )
ensure compliance with the rules in force but also to take
penal or administrative action against those responsible for
infringement of those rules. At no time have the French                By order of 8 February 1995 the President of the Fifth
authorities claimed that France has discharged its                     Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
obligations in the matter.                                             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       C-146/94: Commission of the European Communities v.
 (!) OJ No L 207, 29 . 7. 1987, p. 1 .                                 Hellenic Republic.
 (2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1990, p. 1 .
 (3 ) OJ No L 367, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                             (!) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/94 ( )
                             ( 95/C 87/15 )
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-203/94 ( )
By order of 1 February 1995 the President of the Court of                                         ( 95/C 87/17)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/94: Commission of the                  By order of 3 February 1995 the President of the Court of
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-203/94: French Republic v.
(M OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6. 1994 .                                        Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Haarlem-Bollenstreek,           established    in    Heemstede,
                          (First Chamber)                             Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Veluwe en Zuidelijke
                                                                      Ijsselmeerpolders, established in Apeldoorn, Netherlands,
                      of 21 February 1995                             Combinatie van Aannemers in het Noorden, established in
in Case T-29/92: Vereniging van Samenwerkende                         Leeuwarden,        Netherlands,          Vereniging     Centrale
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and                  Prijsregeling Kabelwerken, established in Leeuwarden,
  Others v. Commission of the European Communities (*)                Netherlands, Delftse Aannemers Vereniging, established in
(Competition — Non-existent measure — Decisions of                    Rotterdam, Netherlands, Economisch Nationaal Verbond
associations of undertakings — Complex rules and                      van Aannemers van Sloopwerken, established in Utrecht,
regulations — Infringement — Effect on trade between                  Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'Gouda en Omstreken',
           Member States — Exemption — Fines)                         established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Gelderse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging inzake Aanbestedingen, established
                            ( 95/C 87/18 )                            in Arnhem, Netherlands, Gooise Aannemers Vereniging,
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         established in Huizen, Netherlands, 's-Gravenhaagse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging, established in The Hague,
In Case T-29/92 : Vereniging van Samenwerkende                        Netherlands, Leidse Aannemersvereniging, established in
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid,                     Leiden, Netherlands, Vereniging Markeer Aannemers
established in Amersfoort, Netherlands, Amsterdamse                   Combinatie, established in Tilburg, Netherlands,
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Amsterdam,                       Nederlandse    Aannemers-          en  Patroonsbond    voor      de
Netherlands, Algemene Aannemersvereniging voor                        Bouwbedrijven, established in Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Utrecht,                      Noordhollandse           Aannemers          Vereniging       voor
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging van Boorondernemers                  Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Amsterdam,
en Buizenleggers, established in Soest, Netherlands,                  Netherlands, Oostnederlandse-Vereniging-Aanbestedings
Aannemersvereniging Velsen, Beverwijk en Omstreken,                   Regeling, established in Delden, Netherlands, Provinciale
established in Velsen, Netherlands, Aannemers Vereniging              Vereniging van Bouwbedrijven in Groningen en Drenthe,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-372/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Transport of goods by road — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Conditions for exemption from the prohibition set out in Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 87(1) EC) — Existing aid or new aid — Principles of reasonableness and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Mo)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-372/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Transport of goods by road - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Conditions for exemption from the prohibition set out in Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 87(1) EC) - Existing aid or new aid - Principles of reasonableness and of the protection of legitimate expectations - Mo)
   (2004/C 118/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-372/97: Italian Republic (Agents: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by O. Fiumara), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P. Nemitz and P. Stancanelli, assisted by M. Moretto), with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to road haulage companies in the Region (OJ 1998 L 66, p. 18) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Prinicple Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Held that there is no need to adjudicate on the form of order sought in the action for annulment of Articles 2 and 5 of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to road haulage companies in the Region, in so far as those articles declare that aid granted as from 1 July 1990 to undertakings carrying out exclusively local, regional or national haulage is illegal.

               2.

               Dismissed the remainder of the action.

               3.

               The Italian Republic and the Commission of the European Communities are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Case C-298/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 June 2015 — ‘Borta’ UAB v VĮ Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 June 2015 — ‘Borta’ UAB v VĮ Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija
   (Case C-298/15)
   (2015/C 311/24)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant:‘Borta’ UAB

      Respondent: VĮ Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Articles 37, 38, 53 and 54 of Directive 2004/17 (1) be understood and interpreted, whether together or separately (but without limitation to those provisions), as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           they preclude a national rule under which, in the case where subcontractors are invited to perform a works contract, the main work, as identified by the contracting authority, must be carried out by the supplier?

                           (b)

                           they preclude a scheme, laid down in the procurement documents, for combining the professional capacities of suppliers, such as that specified by the contracting authority in the contested tender specification, which requires that the portion representing the professional capacity of the relevant economic operator (a joint-activity partner) must correspond to the portion of the specific work which it will actually carry out under the public procurement contract?

               2.

               Must the provisions of Articles 10, 46 and 47 of Directive 2004/17 be understood and interpreted, whether together or separately (but without limitation to those provisions), as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           the principles of equal treatment of suppliers and transparency are not infringed in the case where the contracting authority:

                                       —

                                       provides beforehand, in the procurement documents, a general option of combining the professional capacities of suppliers, but does not set out the scheme for implementing this option;

                                       —

                                       subsequently, in the course of the public procurement procedure, it defines in greater detail the requirements governing the appraisal of the qualifications of suppliers by laying down certain restrictions on combining the professional capacities of suppliers;

                                       —

                                       because of this more detailed definition of the content of the qualification requirements, it extends the deadline for tender submissions and announces this extension in the Official Journal?

                           (b)

                           a restriction on the combining of suppliers’ capacities does not have to be clearly indicated in advance if the specific character of the contracting authority’s activities and the special features of the public procurement contract make such a restriction foreseeable and justifiable?

      (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 69, 19.3.2005

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/46

         (2005/C 82/80)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

      OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

      OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

      OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

      OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

      OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-267/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 15 July 1999 in the case of Urbing (née Adam) against the Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines

text:
C 281/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
     The new legislation enacted in 1998 will produce effects              — Infringement of Article 4(2) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the
     only in relation to the future, and does not put an end to                Commission states that there has been a considerable delay
     the discriminatory taxation suffered by the vehicles the                  (from 1977 to 1993, namely 17 years) on the part of the
     subject-matter of the proceedings which had already been                  French authorities in adopting measures pursuant to their
     placed in circulation in France prior to 1 July 1998.                     obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC, despite the fact
                                                                               that, on the French authorities’ own admission, the prob-
(Vehicles given type-approval on an isolated basis between                     lems concerning pollution of surface water have been
1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988)                                            apparent since the 1980s. The continuing degradation of
                                                                               the quality of surface water by pollution caused by nitrates
— Infringement of Article 90 EC: the Commission considers                      proves the ineffectiveness of the measures constituting
     that the fact that the French authorities limited changes to              the systematic plan of action submitted by the French
     the power rating for administrative purposes of the foreign               authorities.
     vehicles discriminated against, by issuing new registration
     documents only for vehicles which had been given type-                — Infringement of Article 4(3) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the
     approval, with immediate tax consequences, shows that                     use of poor-quality water for the abstraction of drinking
     they only partially took into consideration the judgment                  water, which is in principle prohibited, is possible only if
     in Feldain (1).                                                           the two cumulative conditions are complied with; those
                                                                               conditions have not been fulfilled. In numerous cases, the
                                                                               drinking water thus abstracted exceeds the maximum
(1) Case 433/85 Feldain v Services Fiscaux du Département du Haut-Rhin         permissible nitrate content; for this reason, the French
    (1987) ECR 3521.                                                           authorities state that ‘women who are pregnant or breast-
                                                                               feeding are strongly advised not to drink this water during
                                                                               the period of non-conformity’. Moreover according to the
                                                                               Commission’s findings, the French authorities have failed
                                                                               to establish management plans within the meaning of
                                                                               Article 4(3) where these have proved necessary.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26.
Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-266/99)
                         (1999/C 281/06)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’ar-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               rondissement de Luxembourg by judgment of that court
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July                    of 15 July 1999 in the case of Urbing (née Adam) against
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              (Case C-267/99)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                                              (1999/C 281/07)
the Court should:                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’arron-
— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to               dissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg) of
     ensure that surface water intended for the abstraction of             15 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1999,
     drinking water conforms to the values laid down pursuant              for a preliminary ruling in the case of Urbing (née Adam)
     to Article 3, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            against the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domai-
     obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC (1), in particular             nes (Land Registration and Estates Department) on the follow-
     Article 4 thereof;                                                    ing questions:
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              1. Is the concept of a liberal profession as referred to
                                                                               in point 2 of Annex F to the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                               77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) an autonomous
                                                                               concept of Community law?
The infringement found by the Commission in its reasoned
opinion to have been committed relates exclusively to the                  2. If so, does that concept cover the profession of property
failure properly to apply the directive in the region of Brittany              agent?
alone.
— Infringement of Article 4(1) of Directive 75/440/EEC: in                 (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.77, p. 1.
     the 4 departments concerned, the surface water fails,
     constantly and on a wide scale, to conform to the values
     laid down pursuant to Article 3.


title: Case T-242/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2007 — Commission v IAMA Consulting (Esprit Programme — Community financing — Counterclaim brought pursuant to an arbitration clause — Reimbursement of excessive amounts of aid paid by the Commission)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2007 — Commission v IAMA Consulting
   (Case T-242/04) (1)

   (Esprit Programme - Community financing - Counterclaim brought pursuant to an arbitration clause - Reimbursement of excessive amounts of aid paid by the Commission)
   (2007/C 69/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March, acting as Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Defendant: IAMA Consulting Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: initially by V. Salvatore, then P. Sorteni, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application by the Commission for an order that IAMA Consulting Srl reimburse the amount that the Commission unduly paid to it in the course of the performance of the Regis 22337 contract and the Refiag 23200 contracts, which are covered by the Community's Esprit Programme.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders IAMA Consulting Srl to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 31 757 together with default interest of EUR 4,78530 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Refiag contract, from which the sums paid to date by IAMA are to be deducted, and the sum of EUR 164 345, together with default interest of EUR 24,76432 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Regis contract, from which the payments made by IAMA to date are to be deducted.

               2.

               Orders IAMA Consulting to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.