title: Case C-45/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2015 by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-384/11: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council of the European Union

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/16

         Appeal brought on 4 February 2015 by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Case T-384/11: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-45/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   For the reasons set out in the present appeal Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. submits that the European Court of Justice should:

               1.

               Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court issued by the General Court on 25 November 2014 in Case T-384/11 in sofar as it:

                           —

                           Failed to recognize and award the material damage suffered by Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.;

                           —

                           Recognized that Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. suffered non-material damage but awarded an arbitrarily low amount of EUR 50  000 as the sole compensation for that damage.

               2.

               Exercise its full jurisdiction and, based on the elements available to it:
               Principally

                           —

                           Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount of EUR 5 6 62  737,40, plus interest, for the material damages suffered as a result of a serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

                           —

                           Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount of EUR 2 0 00  000, plus interest, for the non-material damages suffered as a result of a serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

                           —

                           Order the Council of the European Union to pay the appellant’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with this appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure before the General Court, plus interest.

                     Alternatively

                           —

                           Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount determined ex aequo et bono, plus interest, for the material damages suffered as a result of the serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

                           —

                           Award Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. an amount determined ex aequo et bono, but not less than EUR 50  000, plus interest, (as already awarded by the referenced judgment of the General Court), for the non-material damages suffered as a result of the serious breach of a rule of law and illegal conduct by the Council of the European Union.

                           —

                           Order the Council of the European Union. to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.’s legal and other costs incurred in connection with this appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure before the General Court, plus interest.

                     More alternatively

               3.

               Refer the Case back to the General Court in order to re-examine the quantum of damages and issue a new judgment in favour of Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 25 November 2014, with several pleas in law for each ground:

               —

               Under the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 93 to 149 of the judgment under appeal by dismissing the appellant’s claim for compensation in respect of material damages in their totality, despite the fact that the General Court had acknowledged and admitted that the appellant had effectively suffered material damages as a result of the serious unlawful conduct by the Union, based on the following pleas in law:

                           —

                           The judgment has failed to award any damage caused by the Union and its servants in violation of Article 340 (2) TFEU and Article 41(3) CFREU, both of which postulate the principle of ‘full indemnity’;

                           —

                           Furthermore, by failing to award any material damages the existence of which was recognized, the judgment violates the principles of proportionality, equitable evaluation and commits a denial of justice;

                           —

                           The judgment further violates the law through manifest distortions of the facts and evidence, and its rejection of the totality of Appellant's damages is based on defective, illogical and contradictory reasoning.

               —

               As for the second ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 92 and 149 of the judgment under appeal by considering that an award of EUR 50  000 would constitute an appropriate compensation. The General Court has thus committed a breach of the duty to state reasons, a breach of the principle of proportionality and violation of the principle to pay compensation in respect of actual damage and costs, which led to an arbitrary and unlawful result.


title: Case T-378/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Salama v Council

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Salama v Council
   (Case T-378/14) (1)

   (2016/C 165/26)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case C-536/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal, by order of that Court of 26 November 2003 in the case of António Jorge Lda against Fazenda Pública

text:
21.2.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 47/21
(d) discriminatory, and/or                                                         person on the purchase of goods and services intended
                                                                                for both activities, is it necessary to include in the
                                                                                denominator of the fraction for calculation not only the
(e)    contrary to the fundamental freedom to pursue a trade or                    annual turnover but also the value of work in progress at
       business?                                                                   the end of each year which has not yet been put on the
                                                                                market and for which no value, total or partial, has been
                                                                                received?
(1) fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions
    for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
    Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where             —     Or to the effect that only turnover is covered?
    catch limitations are required (OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 12).
(2) amending Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 fixing for 2003 the
    fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish
    stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters
    and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    required (OJ L 97, 15.04.2003, p. 11).                                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
(3) on the allocation of additional days absent from port to Member              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    States in accordance with Annex XVII of Council Regulation                   basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).
    (EC) No 2341/2002 (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under              (2) CIVA (Value Added Tax Code).
    document number C(2003) 762) (OJ L 71, 15.03.2003, p. 28).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal, by order of that Court                    Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the European
of 26 November 2003 in the case of António Jorge Lda                            Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                      against Fazenda Pública
                           (Case C-536/03)                                                             (Case C-540/03)
                            (2004/C 47/34)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/35)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, Portugal, of 26 November 2003, received at                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
the Court Registry on 22 December 2003, for a preliminary                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ruling in the case of António Jorge Lda against Fazenda Pública              ties on 22 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
on the following questions:                                                  represented by H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, acting as
                                                                             Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—      In what sense must Article 19 of the Sixth Council
       Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) be inter-
       preted? (1)
                                                                             The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
—      Is Article 23 (4) of the CIVA (2) compatible with the
       abovementioned provision, when interpreted to the effect              —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the last subparagraph
       that, where the taxable person is an undertaking engaged                    of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Council
       in the real-estate business, carrying out works in two                      Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right
       sectors of activity, one being the construction of buildings                to family reunification (1);
       for sale (exempt from VAT) and the other contract work
       (subject to VAT), in order to calculate the pro rata or
       percentage deduction of VAT borne by that taxable                     —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 June 1996 in Case C-2/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Denkavit Internationaal BV and Others v. Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Midden-Gelderland and Others (Directive 69/335/EEC - Registration levy payable to Chamber of Trade and Industry)

text:
20 . 7 . 96         I HN       1            Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 210/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 11 June 1996                                                        ( Fifth Chamber )
in Case C-2/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                      of 13 June 1996
College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ): Denkavit
                                                                       in Case C-205/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
Internationaal BV and Others v. Kamer van Koophandel en
      Fabrieken voor Midden-Gelderland and Others ( ! )                the Finanzgericht Baden-Wiirttemberg): Binder GmbH &
                                                                             Co. International v. Hauptzollamt Stuttgart-West (')
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Registration levy payable to                             (Frozen strawberries — Protective measures)
               Chamber of Trade and Industry)
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/05 )
                            ( 96/C 210/04 )
                (Language of the case: Dutcb)                                           (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-2/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                       In Case C-205/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the EC Treaty by the College van Beroep voor het
Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for Trade and Industry            of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court )
of the Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the                   Baden-Wiirttemberg ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in
proceedings pending before that court between                          the proceedings pending before that court between Binder
Denkavit Internationaal BV, Galveston BV, Heklicht                     GmbH & Co . International and the Hauptzollamt
Scheepvaartbelangen BV, C. Roeleveld Beheer BV and                     Stuttgart-West — on the validity of Commission Regulation
Others, R. J. Schippefelt, Sigarenhandel Ben Sterk vof, J. H.          ( EEC ) No 2198/90 of 27 July 1990 on protective measures
van Werkhoven Holding Maarssen BV and Kamer van                        applicable to imports of frozen strawberries, frozen
Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Midden-Gelderland, Kamer                  raspberries, provisionally preserved strawberries and
van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor ' s-Gravenhage , Kamer                provisionally preserved raspberries originating in Poland
van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, Kamer van                  ( OJ No L 198 , 1990 , p . 53 ), and Commission Regulation
Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Utrecht en Omstreken — on                 ( EEC ) No 3797/90 of 21 December 1990 on protective
the interprétation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of                  measures applicable to imports of certain semi-processed
 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of              red fruits originating in Poland and Yugoslavia ( OJ No
capital ( OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 ), the      L 365 , 1990, p . 22 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
 Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrîguez Iglesias, President,              composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
 C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet                    J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
 ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch ( Présidents of Chambers ), G. F.        L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L.                  Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.              Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June 1996 , the operative
Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for               part of which is as follows :
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 in
which it rules :
                                                                        Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling has disclosed no factor affecting the validity of
Article 10 (c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 2 7 July              Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2198/90 of27 July 1 990
 1 969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising ofcapital must         on protective measures applicable to imports of frozen
 be interpreted as not prohibiting a levy which is payable             strawberries, frozen raspberries, provisionally preserved
 annually by virtue ofthe registration ofan undertaking with           strawberries and provisionally preserved raspberries
 a Chamber of Trade and Industry, even if that operation                originating in Poland or of Commission Regulation (EEC)
 also serves, where the undertaking is owned by a capital              No 3797/90 of 21 December 1990 on protective measures
 company, as registration of that company, without that                applicable to imports of certain semi-processed red fruits
 latter formality being accompanied by an increase in the levy          originating in Poland and Yugoslavia.
 in question.
                                                                        ( ] ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
  C ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case C-315/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Huhtamaki Dourdan SA

text:
C 213/24              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.9.2003
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of                     Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Huhtamaki Dourdan                                the European Communities against Ireland
                                SA
                                                                                (Case C-322/03)
                        (Case C-315/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/45)
                        (2003/C 213/44)
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
An action against Huhtamaki Dourdan SA was brought before               Luxembourg.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Giolito, acting as Agent, with an address for         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        a)    find that Ireland has failed its obligations under the EC
                                                                              Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21st June 1999 con-
the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                              cerning the Agreement on the organisation of working
                                                                              time of seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners’
1.    to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 162 342,42 (One                       Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
      hundred and sixty-two thousand three hundred and                        Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), or by
      forty-two euros and forty-two cents) corresponding to                   failing to ensure that management and labour have
      EUR 151 433,47 in respect of the principal and to                       introduced the necessary measures by agreement, and/or
      EUR 10 808,95 in respect of accrued interest for delay                  by failing to inform the Commission thereof; and
      up to 6 June 2003;
                                                                        b)    condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
2.    to pay EUR 28,27 (Twenty-eight euros and twenty-seven
      cents) per day in respect of interest accrued at the same
      rate from 6 June 2003 until payment in full;                      Pleas in law and main arguments
3.    to pay the costs of this case.
                                                                        The period within which the directive had to be transposed
                                                                        expired on 30 June 2002.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 167, 02.07.1999, p. 33.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice,
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause since
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of              Action brought on 28 July 2003 by the Commission of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the           the European Communities against the French Republic
Treaty.
                                                                                (Case C-331/03)
In refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the                                    (2003/C 213/46)
Commission, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the
field of industrial and materials technologies and is liable to         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July
                                                                        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as
                                                                        Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-228/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy

text:
C 171/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
                                                                              State the person has the option of being voluntarily
                                                                              insured in respect of a number of branches of social
                                                                              security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
                                                                              have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?
Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro           If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free                question is referred in the alternative:
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,            3.    In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that                   of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The                    incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
Commission received from the French authorities Order                         ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal                          a residence requirement?
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the              (1 ) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
                                                                        by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
                                                                        Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.
                                                                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy
                                                                                (Case C-228/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/26)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
        van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank                     (Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
                         (Case C-227/03)                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:
                         (2003/C 171/25)                                When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
                                                                        89/104/EEC ( 1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
                                                                        relating to trade marks:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) What are the criteria
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at                   (a)   on the basis of which the question of regarding a
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling                         product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                           and
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:                                                                    (b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
                                                                                as other than spare parts and accessories which can
1.    Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 ( 1) pre-                      also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
      clude legislation of a Member State under which a person                      are to be determined?
      who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
      remains insured under that legislation only if he continues       (2) Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
      to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under               mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
      the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain              the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
      other branches of social security irrespective of his place             is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
      of residence?                                                           subparagraph on another basis?
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 171/19
(3) How should the requirement that the use must be                      Action brought on 5 June 2003 by the Commission of
       ‘necessary’ to indicate the intended purpose of a product         the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
       be interpreted? Can the criterion of necessity be satisfied                                     Netherlands
       even though it would in itself be possible to state the
       intended purpose without an express reference to the
                                                                                (Case C-241/03)
       third party’s trade mark, by merely mentioning only for
       instance the technical principle of functioning of the
       product? What significance does it have in that case that                                     (2003/C 171/28)
       the statement may be more difficult for consumers to
       understand if there is no express reference to the third
       party’s trade mark?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
(4) What factors should be taken into account when assessing             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       accordance with honest commercial practice? Does the              5 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
       mentioning of a third party’s trade mark in connection            ties, represented by G. Zavvos and W. Wils, as Agents.
       with the marketing of one’s own product constitute a
       reference to the fact that the marketer’s own product
       corresponds, in quality and technically or as regards its         The applicant claims that the Court should:
       other properties, to the product designated by the third
       party’s trade mark?                                               —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(5) Does it affect the permissibility of the use of a third                     Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of
       party’s trade mark that the economic operator who refers                 the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
       to the third party’s trade mark also markets, in addition                laws of the Members States relating to insurance against
       to a spare part or accessory, a product of his own which                 civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and
       that spare part or accessory is intended to be used with?                amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/
                                                                                EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) ( 1), or in any
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
     marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                        obligations under that directive;
                                                                         —      order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1a Instancia n o 35 (Barcelona) by order of that Court of
5 May 2003 in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against
                         A. Omedas Lecha                                 The time limit for compliance with the directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
                          (Case C-235/03)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.
                          (2003/C 171/27)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de 1a Instancia
no 35 (Court of First Instance No 35) (Barcelona) of 5 May
2003, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against                 Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
A. Omedas Lecha on the following question:                                    European Communities against the French Republic
Within the context of the protection accorded a creditor under                                       (Case C-243/03)
Directive 2000/35/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in                                             (2003/C 171/29)
commercial transaction, is it possible to regard as a debt-
related recovery cost the expenses arising from the use of legal
representation and assistance in the enforcement proceedings
brought for the purpose of recovering that debt.                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
( 1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.                                        by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by E. Traversa, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.


title: Case C-372/03: Action brought on 2 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 275/30              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
      VI. If in regard to the questions posed in section III the         The applicant claims that the Court should
           Court confirms the judgment in van Bennekom and
           there is no incompatibility in this case with the
           requirements of health protection, how can the                1.    declare that by failing to adopt within the period laid
           request for marketing authorisation be successfully                 down all the laws and administrative provisions required
           pursued? Can a decision of general application under                to transpose Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July
           Paragraph 47a of the LMBG be refused, without                       1991 on driving licences (1) the Federal Republic of
           Community law being infringed, on the basis that                    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
           in the German classification system a product is                    Treaty and that Directive;
           medicinal, whereas it can be marketed as a foodstuff
           in the Member State where it was manufactured? Is
           it compatible with Community law, and in particular           2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
           Articles 28 and 30 EC, not to apply the rule in
           Paragraph 47a of the LMBG to such medicinal
           products analogously? If not, can the German State,
           without thereby infringing Community law, evade
           an obligation which a German court intends to
           impose on it to adopt a decision of general appli-            Pleas in law and main arguments
           cation under Paragraph 47a of the LMBG (applied
           analogously) if it, or the authority responsible for          The Commission takes the view that German law is inconsist-
           food but not medicines, objects that because in               ent with Directive 91/439/EEC on the following points:
           the German classification system the product is
           medicinal no decision of general application under
           Paragraph 47a of the LMBG (analogously) may be                —     Minimum age for direct access to heavy motor-cycles in
           adopted,                                                            category A
           a)    because the body competent to adopt decisions                 Paragraph 6.2, second sentence, of the regulation on
                 of general application under Paragraph 47a of                 granting persons permission to drive on the road (1998
                 the LMBG is not competent for medicines also,                 regulation on permission to drive, hereinafter ‘the FeV’)
                                                                               provides for a minimum age of 25 for direct access to
           b)    because the product is not authorised as a                    heavy motor-cycles in category A. Article 6(1)(b), first
                 medicine?                                                     indent, last paragraph, of the Directive, however, provides
                                                                               for a minimum age of 21 years for direct access.
      VII. If the Court declines itself to reply to the questions
           posed in section A, may the national court then
           direct questions on the classification of products or         —     Permission to drive motor vehicles in category DE with
           indeed scientific or methodological questions to the                permission to drive vehicles in categories C1E and D
           European Food Authority and to what extent are
           any guidelines provided by that authority binding                   Under paragraph 6.3.6 of the FeV, it is permissible to
           on the national court?                                              drive vehicles in category DE with a driving permit for
                                                                               categories C1E and D, whereas Article 5(2)(b) of the
                                                                               Directive expressly permits only the driving of motor
                                                                               vehicles in category D with a driving permit covering
                                                                               categories CE and D
                                                                         —     Permission to drive motor vehicles in category D for
Action brought on 2 September 2003 by the Commission
                                                                               holders of driving permits in categories C1, C1E, C or CE
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                         lic of Germany                                        in certain cases
                                                                               Paragraph 6.4 of the FeV entitles holders of driving
                        (Case C-372/03)                                        permits in categories C1, C1E, C and CE in their Member
                                                                               State of origin to drive motor vehicles in category D
                        (2003/C 275/45)                                        (motorised omnibuses) without passengers if the journey
                                                                               is made merely for the purposes of examining the
                                                                               technical state of the vehicle or of transfering the vehicle
                                                                               to another location. However the Directive does not draw
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                          any distinction between the carriage of passengers and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   driving an empty bus. The Directive does not make
ties on 2 September 2003 by the Commission of the European                     provision for the driving of motor vehicles in category D
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Wouter Wils,                      without the corresponding driving licence, although such
members of the Legal Service of the Commission of the                          vehicles may be so driven for the purposes of examining
European Communities, with an address for service in Luxem-                    the technical state of the vehicle after repairs have been
bourg.                                                                         carried out on grounds of practical convenience. A more
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 275/31
     wide-ranging authority to transfer vehicles in category D           of the European Communities on 10 September 2003 (by fax
     with a category C driving licence is clearly contrary to the        on 9 September 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany
     wording of Article 3(1), fifth indent, of the Directive.            represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Moritz Lumma of
                                                                         the Federal Ministry for Finances and Jochim Sedemund,
—    Minimum age for access to categories C1 and C1E                     Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service at the Federal
                                                                         Ministry of Finances, Berlin.
     The FeV makes provision in paragraph 10.2.1 for access
     to categories C1 and C1E at the age of 17, in so far as the
     relevant persons are training to become professional
     drivers. That rule is contrary to the provisions of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Article 6(1)(b), third indent, of the Directive, in conjunc-
     tion, as regards to access to vehicles in categories C1
     and C1E of over 7.5 tonnes, with Article 5(1)(b), second            1.     annul Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/33/EC of the
     indent, of Regulation EC 3820/85.                                          European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003
                                                                                on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
—    Registration of driving licences issued in other Member                    administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
     States                                                                     the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1);
     The systematic registration procedure contained in para-
     graph 29.1 of FeV and the provision for a penalty
                                                                         2.     order the defendant to pay the costs.
     contained in paragraph 75.11 of the FeV infringe the
     principle of mutual recognition laid down in Article 1(2)
     of the Directive.
—    Exchange of driving licences issued in other Member
     States
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     The exchange of driving licences for the purposes of
     registering what may be a shorter national period of
     validity in paragraph 29.3 of the FeV contravenes appli-
     cable Community law. Although an exchange of driving                By its action the Federal Government claims that the Parliament
     licence as provided for in paragraph 42 of the FeV in the           and the Council, by adopting the contested provisions in the
     event that it is not possible to enter limitations or               Directive, went beyond the boundaries of the jurisdiction of
     conditions because of the nature of the driving licence             the Community legislature laid down by the Court of Justice
     does amount to an exchange for the reasons laid down in             in its judgment in Case C-376/98 [2000] ECR I-8419 and failed
     Article 8(2) of the Directive (which also includes the entry        to have regard to the factual requirements for Community
     of medical limitations), the entry of other administrative          jurisdiction to exist established by the Court of Justice.
     observations (for example the applicability of the con-             The contested provisions almost exclusively govern factual
     ditions on probationary permission to drive) is not                 situations with no cross-border effect. Accordingly, there
     covered by Article 8(2) of the Directive, which is why              are neither actual impediments to trade or any discernible
     neither such entries nor exchanges are compatible with              distortion of competition which, under the judgment of the
     Community law.                                                      Court of Justice in Case C-376/98, are a necessary factual
                                                                         precondition in order for the Community to have jurisdiction
                                                                         under Article 95 EC. For that reason Article 95 does not
(1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.                                                 provide a basis for jurisdiction on the part of the Community
                                                                         legislature to adopt the contested provisions. Since, given that
                                                                         there are no impediments to trade or discernible distortion of
                                                                         competition, the contested provisions do not in fact pursue
                                                                         the goal of improving the internal market but rather the
                                                                         protection of health, there is also an infringement of the
                                                                         prohibition on harmonisation in Article 152(4)(c) EC.
Action brought on 10 September 2003 (by fax on 9 Sep-
tember 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against
the European Parliament and the Council of the European
                              Union                                      In addition the Federal Government claims in the alternative
                                                                         that no statement of reasons was given. The Community
                                                                         legislature failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons
                         (Case C-380/03)                                 establishing that the factual requirements in Article 95 EC
                                                                         which confer jurisdiction were met, in particular in regard to
                         (2003/C 275/46)                                 the presence of impediments to trade, and failed to refer even
                                                                         once in the statement of reasons to the existence of any
                                                                         discernible distortion of competition with regard to press
                                                                         products and broadcasts, with the result that to that extent the
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of             Directive in any event infringes the obligation to give reasons
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice               in Article 253 EC.


title: Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Claus Jensen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-156/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96       I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 354/35
parties to the contract for the sale of the property constitute      cabinet to which he was attached. The applicant states in
a commercially viable compromise of the type arrived at by           that regard that he had himself requested the administration
reasonable parties to transactions effected in the ordinary          for assurances to that effect, having regard to the amount of
course of business . The contested decision therefore has no         the sum in question, and that over one year had elapsed
legal basis in Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and should          before the department concerned had discovered the
consequently be annulled for that reason alone .                     existence of a possible error.
Furthermore, the decision infringes Article 190 of the EC
Treaty, in that it does not contain a sufficiently clear and         The applicant maintains, first, that Article 45 of the
unambiguous statement of reasons .                                   Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and Article 85
                                                                     of the Staff Regulations have been infringed, in that the
                                                                     criteria for the recovery of undue payments are not fulfilled
                                                                     in the present case . The Commission did not pay the
                                                                     allowance by mistake but with full knowledge of the facts,
                                                                     applying a practice by which it had established a system for
Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Claus Jensen against             the payment of advances subject to recovery thereof on
      the Commission of the European Communities                     certain conditions. Nor, second, was there any question of
                      ( Case T-156/96 )                              his having acted in bad faith since, as far as the
                        ( 96/C 354/67 )                              administration was concerned, the payment was not undue
                                                                     at the time when it was made and the applicant cannot
               (Language of the case: French)                        therefore be regarded as having been aware of any
                                                                     irregularity whatsoever. He considers in that regard that it
                                                                     appears necessary to interpret Article 85 of the Staff
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Regulations as not excluding cases of bad faith other than
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     those involving awareness of the irregularity of the payment.
Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1996
                                                                     In any event, according to the applicant, the Commission
by Claus Jensen, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
                                                                     has not proved that, in the circumstances of the case, he was
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                     aware , when the installation allowance was paid to him,
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                                                                     that that payment was irregular or that it had to fulfil certain
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .                                     conditions in order to become definitive .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         In addition, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 24
                                                                     of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, since
— order measures of inquiry as proposed in the grounds of            the advance payment system is inconsistent with that
    the application,                                                 provision. In his view, Article 24 requires the
— annul the defendant's decision, notified to him by a letter
                                                                     administration, upon the entry into service of an official or
    dated 13 November 1995 from the Head of the Unit                 agent, to adopt a definitive decision on entitlement to the
                                                                     allowance on the basis of the expected period of service . It
    dealing with pensions and relations with former staff
                                                                     therefore precludes the adoption by the administration of an
    which he received on 23 November 1995 , ordering the
                                                                     initial, purely provisional decision followed, subsequently,
    recovery from him of the installation allowance paid to
                                                                     by a definitive decision based on the period of service
    him, by means of the deduction of part of it from his
                                                                     actually completed .
    severance grant and the issue of a debit note in respect of
    the balance ,
— order the defendant to pay him damages in a sum
    equivalent to the amount of the installation allowance
    received by him, namely Bfr 565 976 ,                            Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-454/93 ,
                                                                                T-456/93 and T-457/93(M
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/68
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant, an official of the Danish civil service on
secondment to the Commission, contests the decision of the           By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
appointing authority ordering, in consequence of the                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
termination of his contract of employment and by reason of           Communities ordered the removal from the register of
his appointment as a national expert, the repayment of the           Joined Cases T-454/93 , T-456/93 and T-457/93 : Elders
sums paid by way of installation allowance upon him taking           Trading Limited and Paterson Elders ( Produce ) Limited,
up his duties in the cabinet of the Danish Member of the             Barretts & Baird (Wholesale ) Limited, FMC pic, FMC
Commission .                                                         ( Meat ) Limited, D. T. Duggins Limited, Marshall
                                                                     ( Lamberhurst ) Limited, Montelupo Ltd and North Devon
He points out, first of all, that he was given unambiguous           Meat Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities .
assurances on a number of occasions by the competent
department within the defendant institution that the                 (!) OJ No C 290, 6 . 11 . 1992 .
payments in question were to be regarded as having been
definitively acquired by him, even if he were to leave the


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Antwerp, by judgment of that court of 13 May 1996 in the case of (a) Belgian State v. 1. Banque Indosuez, 2. Stahlhandel Schmitz GmbH and 3. NV Rijn- and Kanaalvaart Expeditie and (b) Belgian State v. European Community (Case C-177/96)

text:
 No C 233/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 8 . 96
     falling within the Commission's management powers,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
     defined by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 on             Eerste Aanleg, Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
     common rules for imports of certain textile products             13 May 1996 in the case of ( a ) Belgian State v. 1 . Banque
     from third countries ('). Several provisions of that            Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz GmbH and 3 . NV Rijn
     Regulation preclude such exercise of discretion by the          and Kanaalvaart Expeditie and ( b ) Belgian State v.
     Commission which , moreover, is contrary to the specific                              European Commumty
     scope and nature of management powers .                                                  ( Case C-177/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/05 )
     The allowing of 'exceptional flexibility' measures is also
     contrary to the objective of rigorous and transparent           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     management of the quantitative limits underlying the            European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
     system introduced by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 .            van Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp, of
    The 'exceptional flexibility' measures made available for        13 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    textile products from China on 6 March 1996 by far               22 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of ( a )
    exceeded the limits laid down for normal flexibility             Belgian State v . 1 . Banque Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz
    measures and undeniably ran counter to the Council's             GmbH and 3 . Rijn- and Kanaalvaart Expeditie NV and ( b )
    decision to reduce the rate of annual growth of the              Belgian State v. European Community, on the following
    quantitative limits applicable to China, as is apparent          questions :
    from the Agreement renegotiated in 1 995 ; consequently,
    those measures have no basis in the bilateral agreement
    and even depart from the spirit and letter of the                1 . Does the name 'Yugoslavia ' in Commission Decision
    provisions thereof. Recourse to 'exceptional flexibility'            No 2131 /88/ECSC (') also refer to the State of
    measures also involves a clear breach of the general and             Macedonia-Scopje after it had broken away from ( what
    fundamental principles of the Community legal order,                 remained of) Yugoslavia ?
    which have been recognized as such by the Community
    case law .                                                       2 . Are the import duties which are to be levied in
                                                                         accordance      with      Decision  No  2131 /88/ECSC      on
                                                                         imports into the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union
— Manifest breach of the general Community legal                         of steel products originating in Yugoslavia also
    principles concerning competence, institutional                      applicable to such imports originating in the State of
    equilibrium and protection of the legitimate                         Macedonia-Scopje between 1 May 1992 and 31 July
    expectations of economic agents in the Community : as                1992 inclusive ?
    an authority giving effect to the commercial agreements
    entered into by the Council , the Commission must limit          (') OJ No L 188 , 1988 , p . 14 .
    its action to applying agreed provisions . Any decision
    which goes beyond such limits, such as that represented
    by the 'exceptional flexibility' measures, breaches the
    principle of legally defined competence — and is
    consequently illegal through lack of powers . The
    Commission is also acting in breach of the principle of
    institutional equilibrium in adopting decisions which, as
    regards their legal effects, constitute a derogation from
    the provisions whose approval, at Community level , or          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
    conclusion, at international level, is a matter for the         Raad van State, by order of that court of 31 May 1996 in the
    Council alone .                                                 case of 1 . Beside B V and 2 . 1 . M. Besselsen v. Minister for
                                                                     Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation
                                                                                ( Case C-192/96 )
    The practice of taking 'exceptional flexibility' measures                                   ( 96/C 233/06 )
    represents a factor of unpredictability as regards the
    reasonable expectations of economic agents, in
    particular those in the textile industry; since such            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    measures cannot be foreseen by economic agents and do           European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
    not pursue an overriding public interest, they contravene       Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
    the principle of legitimate expectations and are, for that      31 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    reason among others, illegal .                                  4 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Beside
                                                                    BV and 2 . I. M. Besselsen v . Minister for Housing, Town
                                                                    and Country Planning and Conservation on the following
(') OJ No L 2 75 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                   questions :
                                                                     1 . Should the expression 'municipal/household waste '
                                                                         referred to under AD 160 in Annex III to Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                                                                         supervision 'and control of shipments of waste within,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 1996 in Joined Cases C-418/93, C-419/93, C-420/93, C-421/93, C-460/93, C-461/93, C-462/93, C-464/93, C-9/94, C-10/94, C-11/94, C-14/94, C-15/94, C-23/94, C-24/94 and C-332/94 (references for a preliminary ruling made by the Pretura Circondariale, Rome, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto): Semeraro Casa Uno SRL and Others v. Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others (Interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 52 of the EC Treaty and Directives 64/223/EEC and 83/189/EEC - Prohibition of certain kinds of Sunday and public-holiday trading)

text:
5 . 10. 96           LEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 294/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Straordinario del Comune di Terlizzi ( C-9/94 ), Società
                        ( Fifth Chamber )                             Italiana Elettronica SRL ( SIEL ) and Sindaco del Comune di
                                                                      Dozza ( C-10/94 ), Modaffari SRL and Sindaco del Comune
                        of 20 June 1996                               di Trezzano sul Naviglio ( C-11/94 ), Modaffari SRL and
in Joined Cases C-418/93 , C-419/93 , C-420/93 , C-421 /93 ,          Comune di Cinisello Balsamo ( C-14/94 ), Cologno SRL and
C-460/93 , C-461 /93 , C-462/93 , C-464/93 , C-9/94 ,                 Sindaco del Comune di Cologno Monzese ( C-15/94 ),
C-10/94, C-11/94 , C-14/94, C-15/94 , C-23/94, C-24/94                Modaffari SRL and Sindaco del Comune di Osio Sopra
and C-332/94 ( references for a preliminary ruling made by            ( C-23/94 ), M. Dieci SRL and Sindaco del Comune di
the Pretura Circondariale, Rome, Sezione Distaccata di                Madignano ( C-24/94 ), and Consorzio Centro Commerciale
Castelnuovo di Porto ): Semeraro Casa Uno SRL and Others              'Il Porto' and Sindaco del Comune di Adria ( C-332/94 ) on
       v. Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and Others ( 1 )              the interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 52 of the EC Treaty,
 (Interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 52 of the EC Treaty           Council Directive 64/223/EEC of 25 February 1964
and       Directives  64/223/EEC        and   83/189/EEC      —       concerning the attainment of freedom of establishment and
Prohibition of certain kinds of Sunday and public-holiday             freedom to provide services in respect of activities in
                               trading)                               wholesale trade ( OJ , English Special Edition 1963 to 1964 ,
                                                                      p . 123 ) and Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March
                           ( 96/C 294/01 )                             1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
                                                                      information in the field of technical            standards and
                 (Language of the cases: Italian)                     regulations ( OJ No L 109 1983 , p . 8 ), as amended by
                                                                      Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( OJ L 81 ,
                                                                       1988 , p . 75 ) the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of:
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann
           published in the European Court Reports)                    ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.
                                                                       Cosmas , Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
 In joined Cases C-418/93 , C-419/93 , C-420/93 , C-421 /93 ,         the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 1996 , the
 C-460/93 , C-461 /93 , C-462/93 , C-464/93 , C-9/94 ,                operative part of which is as follows:
 C-10/94 , C-11 /94, C-14/94, C-15/94 , C-23/94, C-24/94
 and C-332/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of           1 . On a proper construction, Article 30 of the EC Treaty
 the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale, Rome , Sezione                 does not apply to national rules on the closing times of
 Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto, ( Rome District                        shops applicable to all traders exercising an activity on
 Magistrates ' Court ), for a preliminary ruling in the                     national territory and affecting in the same way in law
 proceedings pending before that court between Semeraro                     and in fact the marketing of national products and
 Caso Uno SRL and Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco                             products from other Member States.
 ( C-418/93 ), Semeraro Mobili SPA and Sindaco del Comune
 di Erbusco ( C-419/93 ), RB Arredamento SRL and Sindaco               2 . Article 52 of the EC Treaty and Directive 64/223/EEC
 del Comune di Stezzano ( C-420/93 ), Città Convenienza                     of the Council of 25 February 1964 concerning the
 Milano SRL and Sindaco del Comune di Trezzano sul                          attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to
 Naviglio ( C-421 /93 ), Città Convenienza Bergamo SRL and                  provide services in respect of activities in the wholesale
 Sindaco del Comune di Stezzano ( C-460/93 ), Centro                        trade do not preclude national rules on the closing times
 Italiano Mobili SRL and Sindaco del Comune di Pineto                       of shops such as those at issue in the main
  ( C-461 /93 ), Il 3C Centro Convenienza Casa SRL and                      proceedings.
 Sindaco del Comune di Roveredo in Piano ( C-464/93 ),
 Benelli Confezioni SNC and Sindaco del Comune di Capena                3 . Council Directive 83/1 89/EEC of28 March 1 983 laying
  ( C-464/93 ), M. Quattordici SRL and Commissario                          down a procedure for the provision of information in
 ---pagebreak--- No C 294/2              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 10 . 96
      the field of technical standards and regulations, as               11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic, represented by Prof.
      amended by Council Directive 88/1 82/EEC of                        Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Maurizio
      22 March 1 988, is not applicable to national rules on the         Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
      closing times of shops such as those at issue in the main          Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue
      proceedings.                                                       Marie-Adelaide .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
      OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
      OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should : annul
                                                                         Commission Decision 96/311 /EC of 10 April 1996 to the
                                                                         extent to which, in clearing the accounts submitted by the
                                                                         Italian Republic for expenditure for 1992 , it declares that
                                                                         the total sum of Lit 108 850 076 808 is not chargeable to
                                                                         the EAGGF .
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
               (Third Chamber ) of 11 July 1996
in Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of                  Main pleas in law and arguments adduced in support
                 the European Communities ( ! )
(Appeal — Official — Res judicata — Appeal clearly                       — Public storage of beef and veal; special inquiries finding
                                unfounded)                                    ( a ) inadequacy of controls and ( b ) purchase of
                             ( 96/C 294/02 )                                 non-permitted goods : Lit 54 927 174 194
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             The Italian Republic contests the fixed-rate reduction of
                                                                              10 % and in any event maintains that the discretionary
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 power to make a fixed-rate adjustment was exercised in
           published in the European Court Reports)                           breach of the rules of conduct laid down in part C of
                                                                              Annex 2 to the Guidelines ( Doc . VI/216/93-F.R. of
In Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios ( represented by                       2 June 1993 ). If the discretionary power to determine a
Georgios Sakellaropoulos ) — appeal against the order of the                  fixed-rate amendment had been exercised fairly, the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                           figure arrived at would have been 5 % .
( Fourth Chamber ) of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94
Coussios v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-723 , seeking to
have that order set aside , the other party to the proceedings           — Public storage of beef and veal , irregular auction
being the Commission of the European Communities                              procedures for the sale of intervention meat: Lit
( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira , assisted by Denis                           7 104 000 000
Waelbroeck ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of:
J. - P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D.                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 expressly prohibits the
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                              submision of more than one tender for the contract for
Registrar, has made the following order on 11 July                            public storage by any one person . The AIMA has always
 1996 :                                                                       observed that provision and the tenders received were
                                                                              found to have been submitted by companies with
 1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                                 different identities and names . It is normal practice in
                                                                              Italy for producers' associations to undertake on behalf
                                                                              of their members all dealings with public bodies ( AIMA,
2 . Mr Coussios is ordered to pay the costs of the present                    foreign trade, Ministry of Finance, etc .). Those
       proceedings.                                                           procedures do not detract from the secrecy of the tenders
                                                                              and do not provide a means of etablishing a syndicate . In
 (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                              other words, the association merely acts as a
                                                                               'postman'.
                                                                         — Inadequate administration and control of premiums for
                                                                               sheep and goats : Lit 34 175 522 595
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case C-242/96                                     The Italian Republic, without examining the merits of
                                                                               each case, states that in most of the cases covered by the
                              ( 96/C 294/03 )                                  inspection, the discrepancies are attributable to
                                                                               insufficient training of the staff assigned to the checks
 An action against the Commission of the European                              and lack of familiarity with the rules . The regions have
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                        given an assurance that they are prepared to give the


title: Case C-11/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium)) — Hans Eckelkamp, Natalie Eckelkamp, Monica Eckelkamp, Saskia Eckelkamp, Thomas Eckelkamp, Jessica Eckelkamp, Joris Eckelkamp v Belgische Staat (Free movement of capital — Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Inheritance tax — National rules concerning the assessment of duties on the transfer of immovable property which do not allow for mortgage-related charges relating to the immovable property to be deducted from the value of that property on the ground that, at the time of death, the person whose estate is being administered was residing in another Member State — Restriction — Justification — None)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium)) — Hans Eckelkamp, Natalie Eckelkamp, Monica Eckelkamp, Saskia Eckelkamp, Thomas Eckelkamp, Jessica Eckelkamp, Joris Eckelkamp v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-11/07) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Inheritance tax - National rules concerning the assessment of duties on the transfer of immovable property which do not allow for mortgage-related charges relating to the immovable property to be deducted from the value of that property on the ground that, at the time of death, the person whose estate is being administered was residing in another Member State - Restriction - Justification - None)
   (2008/C 285/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Beroep te Gent
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hans Eckelkamp, Natalie Eckelkamp, Monica Eckelkamp, Saskia Eckelkamp, Thomas Eckelkamp, Jessica Eckelkamp, Joris Eckelkamp

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 17 EC, 18 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC — National legislation on the calculation of duty payable in respect of the acquisition, through inheritance, of immovable property which does not allow for deduction, from the value of the immovable property, of mortgage-related charges relating to that property on the ground that the testator, at the time of death, was resident in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   The combined provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which makes no provision for the deductibility of debts secured on such property where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was, at that time, residing in the first-mentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-324/05 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for mixed word and figurative mark containing the verbal element Turkish Power — Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark POWER — Rejection of the opposition — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/17

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-324/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for mixed word and figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Turkish Power’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark POWER - Rejection of the opposition - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
   (2006/C 224/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting the appeal brought by the appellant, proprietor of the trade mark ‘POWER’, against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘TURKISH POWER’ — Likelihood of confusion between trade marks
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0002

Action brought on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94)

Official Journal C 199 , 21/07/1994 P. 0009 - 0009

Action brought on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94) (94/C 199/09)An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA), whose registered office is in Perth, Scotland, represented by Alastair Sutton, Barrister, and Alsadair R. M. Bell, Solicitor, with an address for service at the offices of Edmond Tavernier, Rue Töpffer 11, CH-1206 Geneva.The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:- annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority dated 24 March 1994,- order the defendant to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:The applicant, a company formed to promote the interests of Scottish salmon growers, contests the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision of 24 March 1994 to close its file on the complaint which the applicant had lodged concerning alleged infringements of the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement by the Kingdom of Norway in granting State aid to its salmon industry. The contested decision was taken on the grounds of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's lack of competence under the relevant provisions of the EEA Agreement.The applicant asserts, first, that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 62 (1) (b) of the EEA Agreement and Article 5 (1) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on the grounds that the EFTA Surveillance Authority is the only competent authority to deal with the complaint, and its refusal to do so is tantamount to a denial of justice for the applicant.Secondly, the applicant submits that Article 16 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice and, thus, an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 36 of that Agreement has been infringed by the Authority's failure to state any or any adequate reasons for its decision.


title: Case T-374/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — VM Vermögens-Management v OHIM — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/64

         Action brought on 9 July 2015 — VM Vermögens-Management v OHIM — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)
   (Case T-374/15)
   (2015/C 302/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH (Baldham, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ — Community trade mark No 8 770 042

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 418/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-253/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 3 May 2016 — Flibtravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS and Others

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 3 May 2016 — Flibtravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS and Others
   (Case C-253/16)
   (2016/C 260/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Flibtravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA

      Respondents: AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS, Ryad SCRI, Taxis Bachir & Cie SCS, Abdelhamid El Barjraji, Abdelouahab Ben Bachir, Sotax SCRI, Mostapha El Hammouchi, Boughaz SPRL, Sahbaz SPRL, Jamal El Jelali, Mohamed Chakir Ben Kadour, Taxis Chalkis SCRL, Mohammed Gheris, Les délices de Fès SPRL, Abderrahmane Belyazid, E.A.R. SCS, Sotrans SPRL, B.M.A. SCS, Taxis Amri et Cie SCS, Aramak SCS, Rachid El Amrani, Mourad Bakkour, Mohamed Agharbiou, Omar Amri, Jmili Zouhair, Mustapha Ben Abderrahman, Mohamed Zahyani, Miltotax SPRL, Lextra SA, Ismael El Amrani, Farid Benazzouz, Imad Zufri, Abdel-Ilah Bokhamy, Ismail Al Bouhali, Bahri Messaoud & Cie SCS, Mostafa Bouzid, BKN Star SPRL, M.V.S. SPRL, A.B.M.B. SCS, Imatrans SPRL, Reda Bouyaknouden, Ayoub Tahri, Moulay Adil El Khatir, Redouan El Abboudi, Mohamed El Abboudi, Bilal El Abboudi, Sofian El Abboudi, Karim Bensbih, Hadel Bensbih, Mimoun Mallouk, Abdellah El Ghaffouli, Said El Aazzoui

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as being capable of application to rates and conditions imposed by a Member State on taxi service operators where: (a) the taxi journeys concerned are only exceptionally made across national borders; (b) a significant proportion of the customers of those taxis consists of EU nationals or residents who are not nationals or residents of the Member State in question; and (c) in the specific circumstances of the case, the taxi journeys at issue are, for the passenger, very often no more than one stage in a longer trip the final destination or point of departure of which is in an EU country other than the Member State in question?

               2.

               Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as being applicable to operating conditions other than fare conditions and the criteria for obtaining authorisation to carry on the transport activity in question, such as, in this case, a prohibition preventing taxi operators from making available individual seats rather than the vehicle in its entirety, and a prohibition on those operators determining themselves the final destination of the journey that they are offering to customers, which has the effect of preventing those operators from grouping together customers who are travelling to the same final destination?

               3.

               Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting, unless authorised by the Commission, measures such as those referred to in the second question (a) the general aim of which, among other objectives, is to protect taxi operators from competition from private hire vehicle companies and (b) the specific effect of which, in the particular circumstances of the case, is to protect coach service operators from competition from taxi operators?

               4.

               Must Article 96(1) TFEU be interpreted as prohibiting, unless authorised by the Commission, a measure which prohibits taxi operators from soliciting customers where the effect of that measure in the particular circumstances of the case is to reduce their capacity to attract customers away from a competing coach service?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-356/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München): Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen eG v Hauptzollamt Lindau (Additional levy on milk — Annual statement of quantities of milk delivered to purchaser — Late communication — Penalty — Validity of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93)

text:
C 302/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.10.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 6 July 2000                                                              of 6 July 2000
in Case C-289/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Giudice di Pace di Genova, Italy): Eridania SpA v                      in Case C-356/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
     Azienda Agricola San luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (1)                     by the Finanzgericht München): Molkereigenossenschaft
                                                                                Wiedergeltingen eG v Hauptzollamt Lindau (1)
(Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1996/1997 —
Regionalisation — Deficit zones — Classification of Italy                  (Additional levy on milk — Annual statement of quantities
    — Validity of Regulations Nos 1580/96 and 1785/81)                     of milk delivered to purchaser — Late communication —
                                                                           Penalty — Validity of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 536/93)
                          (2000/C 302/17)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/18)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-289/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                  in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by Giudice di Pace di
Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Eridania SpA and Azienda                 In Case C-356/97, Reference to the Court under Article 177
Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj — on the validity of                 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Finanzgericht
Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July              München (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
1996 fixing, for the 1996/97 marketing year, the derived                   ings pending before that court between Molkereigenossen-
intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for            schaft Wiedergeltingen eG and Hauptzollamt Lindau — on
raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the                    the validity of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of
amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1996 L 206,                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993
p. 9) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June                laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the                      levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12) — the
sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 1), as amended by Council                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President
Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 (OJ 1995                       of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth
L 110, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of:                      Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges;
P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,             A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate                  trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000,
General J. Mischo; Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal               in which it ruled:
Administrator, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                           The second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on
Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no factor of        the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products is
such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation                invalid in that it imposes on the purchaser, in the event of failure to
(EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 fixing, for the 1996/1997                  observe the time-limit referred to in the first subparagraph of
marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the       Article 3(2), a financial penalty equal to the amount of the additional
intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B           levy on milk due for a 0,1 % overrun on the quantities of milk and
beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs and of              milk equivalent delivered by producers, without making any provision
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the                 for the length of time by which the time-limit is exceeded to be taken
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.                    into account.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.


title: Case T-202/10: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting Member State’s commitments — Action for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/23

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission
   (Case T-202/10) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations - Existing aid - Decision accepting Member State’s commitments - Action for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 49/42
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Woonlinie (Woudrichem, Netherlands); Stichting Allee Wonen (Roosendaal, Netherlands); Woningstichting Volksbelang (Wijk bij Duurstede, Netherlands); Stichting WoonInvest (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands); and Stichting Woonstede (Ede, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, E. Henny and T. Ottervanger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Noë and S. Thomas, Agents, and by H. Gilliams, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and The European Liaison Committee for Social Housing (Cecodhas);

               3.

               Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Vesteda Groep, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and Cecodhas, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.