title: Case C-464/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichthof by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of Johann Gruber against Bay Wa Aktiengesellschaft

text:
C 56/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.3.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The argument that the measures in issue serve environmental
                                                                       purposes is not enough to justify them, since they are
                                                                       disproportionate. This is because, where the journey to be
                                                                       travelled is greater than a certain distance, the burden imposed
(1) declare that, by introducing, by means of Paragraphs 8(1)
                                                                       on the environment outweighs the ecological advantages
       and 9(2) of the Verpackungsverordnung 1998, a system
                                                                       connected with the use of refillable containers. For the
       for the re-use of packaging for products which are
                                                                       purposes of the present proceedings, it is immaterial what
       required, under Directive 80/777/EEC, to be bottled at
                                                                       distance actually represents that threshold in respect of mineral
       source, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its
                                                                       water, since the German rules apply, quite irrespective of any
       obligations under Article 5 of European Parliament and
                                                                       transportation distance, to all mineral waters to be bottled at
       Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 on
                                                                       source, and thus also cover cases in which that distance is
       packaging and packaging waste, in conjunction with
                                                                       considerable.
       Article 28 EC, and Article 3 in conjunction with point
       2(d) of Annex II to Council Directive 80/777/EEC (2) of
       15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
       Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing        (1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
       of natural mineral waters;                                      (2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 1.
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                       Gerichthof by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of
                                                                            Johann Gruber against Bay Wa Aktiengesellschaft
The rules laid down in Paragraphs 8(1) and 9(2) of the                                         (Case C-464/01)
Verpackungsverordnung (Packaging Order) 1998 are incom-
patible, as regards natural mineral waters to be bottled at
source, with Article 5 of the packaging directive and Article 28
                                                                                (2002/C 56/08)
EC, since they result in an impairment of trade which cannot
be justified on grounds of environmental protection. The
interaction of the German legislation is such that it is in the
interests of producers of mineral waters in other Member
States who wish to market their products in Germany to use
refillable containers if they wish to avoid the obligation to          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
collect a deposit in respect of the packaging distributed by           European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof
them and to retain the possibility of participating in general         (Supreme court of Austria) of 8 November 2001, which was
return systems. Although that legislation undeniably favours           received at the Court Registry on 4 December 2001, for a
the use of refillable containers rather than non-reusable ones,        preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Gruber against Bay
national measures to promote the use of refillable containers          Wa Aktiengesellschaft, on the following questions:
are only in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 94/62/EC if,
at the same time, they meet the requirements of Article 28 EC.
The German rules in the present case, however, constitute a            1.    Where the purposes of a contract are partly private, does
measure the effect of which is equivalent to a quantitative                  the status of ‘consumer’ for the purposes of Article 13 of
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 EC. The German                  the Convention depend on which of the private and the
measures operate to make the distribution of natural mineral                 trade or professional purposes is predominant, and what
waters from other Member States more difficult and/or more                   criteria are to be applied in determining which of the
expensive. It is true that German producers must also, as the                private and the trade or professional purposes predomi-
case may be, transport empty refillable containers over long                 nates?
distances; but, where bottling takes place outside Germany,
the distance between the bottling plant and the place of               2.    Does the determination of the purpose depend solely on
consumption in Germany is in most cases significantly greater                the circumstances which could be objectively ascertained
than when bottling and consumption both take place within                    by the other party to the contract with the consumer?
Germany. The possibility, for foreign mineral water producers,
of participating in a system of standardised re-usable packaging
would result in additional conversion costs for those producers        3.    In case of doubt, is a contract which may be attributed
whilst, at best, reducing the need for the return transportation             both to private and to trade or professional activity to be
of empty refillable containers.                                              regarded as a consumer contract?
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/5
4.    Is the conclusion of a contract preceded by advertising            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
      within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Convention           richt Stuttgart by order of 20 November 2001 in the case
      where the other party to the subsequent contract with              of Georgios Orfanopoulos, Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina
      the consumer advertised his products by brochure in the            Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfanopoulos against Land Ba-
      Contracting State of the consumer but did not advertise                                   den-Württemberg
      the products the consumer subsequently bought in it?
                                                                                (Case C-482/01)
5.    Is there a consumer contract within the meaning of
      Article 13 of the Convention where the seller makes an                                      (2002/C 56/10)
      offer by telephone from his own State to the buyer who
      lives in a different State, and the offer is not accepted but
      the buyer subsequently buys the product thus offered in
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      response to a written offer?
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                         Stuttgart (Finance Court Stuttgart) of 20 November 2001,
6.    Does the consumer take the steps necessary for the                 received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2001, for a
      conclusion of the contract in his own State within the             preliminary ruling in the case of Georgios Orfanopoulos,
      meaning of Article 13(3)(b) of the Convention where an             Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfa-
      offer is made to him in the State of his contracting               nopoulos against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      partner and he accepts that offer by telephone from his            questions:
      own State?
                                                                         1.   Is a restriction on the freedom of movement of a foreign
                                                                              EU national with many year’s residence in a host State,
                                                                              ordered on account of a criminal offence under the
                                                                              Betäubungsmittelgesetz (Law on Narcotics), in conformity
                                                                              with European Law in terms of Article 39(3) EC on
                                                                              grounds of public policy, public security or public health,
                                                                              where, on account of his personal conduct, there is a
                                                                              justified expectation that he will also commit future
                                                                              criminal offences and where the spouse of the EU national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                         and his children cannot reasonably be expected to live in
Frankenthal (Pfalz), by order of that court of 11 October                     his State of origin?
    2001, in criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper
                                                                         2.   Does Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC(1) of
                                                                              25 February 1964 preclude national legislation which no
                          (Case C-476/01)                                     longer provides for objection proceedings in which an
                                                                              examination of expediency is also carried out in relation
                                                                              to a decision of an administrative authority to expel the
                           (2002/C 56/09)                                     holder of a residence permit from the national territory, if
                                                                              a special body which is independent of the administrative
                                                                              authority adopting the decision has not been established?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   (1) OJ L 56, p. 850.
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht (District
Court) Frankenthal (Pfalz) of 11 October 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 7 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper, on the
following question:
                                                                         Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission
Does Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of                 of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
29 July 1991 on driving licences preclude a Member State                                             Sweden
from refusing to recognise a driving licence where, according
to its investigations, another Member State issued that licence                                  (Case C-490/01)
although the holder of the licence did not have his normal
residence there, and in appropriate cases is actual effect to be                                  (2002/C 56/11)
given to that provision in that regard?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
(1) OJ L 237, 1991, p. 1.                                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius and C. Tufvesson,
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-426/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/56

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos v Commission
   (Case T-426/14)
   2014/C 253/74
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Distribuidores y Transportistas de Productos Petrolíferos, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.


title: Action brought on 14 October 1996 by Paolo Salvatore Affatato against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-157/96)

text:
No C 40/20           I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 14 October 1996 by Paolo Salvatore                   can alter its contents . Thus, once published, the list of
Affatato against the Commission of the European                        successful candidates on which the applicant's name
                            Communities                                appeared could not be altered without the other party
                         ( Case T-157/96 )                             being heard , even as a self-protection measure, since the
                                                                       alleged error was one of fact and not of law.
                            ( 97/C 40/48 )
                                                                       According to the applicant, the entire procedure appears
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       therefore to be vitiated by serious irregularities at every
                                                                       stage or, at the least, in its latter stages .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 14 October
1996 by Paolo Salvatore Affatato, residing at Foggia
( Italy ), represented and defended by Nicola De Perna ,
Avvocato, Foggia, with an address for servicc at 13 Piazza             Action brought on 15 October 1996 by Riidiger Wenk
del Lago, Foggia .
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T- 159/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                     ( 97/C 40/49 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— declare valid and legitimate the official notification of
      5 July 1996 with the result that the applicant's name
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
      is returned to the list of successful candidates,
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
— annul the unlawful stages of the competition in                      1996 by Riidiger Wenk , residing in Caracas (Venezuela ),
      question with the result that it is held again ,                 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
— order payment of compensation for pecuniary and
      non-pecuniary damage resulting from the conduct of
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
      the jury and other related bodies, which was at the
      least equivocal .
                                                                       — annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature
                                                                            for post COM/121 /95, including the decision notified
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         to the applicant by the despatch of a standard-form
                                                                            document dated 2 February 1996 ,
After taking part in competition COM/B/794 , the
applicant was informed by letter of 5 July 1996 from the               — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the implied
chairman of the jury that he had passed all the tests and                   rejection decision adopted by the Commission in
had accordingly been placed on the list of successful                       consequence of its failure to respond to the applicant's
candidates . However, by letter of 10 July 1996 , the                       complaint,
chairman retracted the earlier notification , excluding the
applicant from the list of successful candidates, whilst for           — annul all related or subsequent decisions adopted by
the first time communicating the marks obtained .                           the Commission, in particular the decision appointing
                                                                            another candidate to the post in issue ,
The applicant alleges first of all breach of the principles
that administrative procedures must be made public and                 — order the Commission to proceed afresh to fill the post
that administrative acts must be transparent. He maintains                  in issue, in accordance with the provisions of the Staff
that the jury acted all along in absolute secrecy ; whilst                  Regulations,
admitting him to the oral tests, it did not tell him what
marks he had obtained in the written tests . Its attitude              — order the Commission to pay all the costs .
remained the same during the oral tests, in which the
candidates were all interviewed behind strictly closed                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
doors and in the absence of any witnesses .
                                                                       The applicant, a grade A4 official assigned to the
As regards the supposed 'human error' which gave rise to               Commission 's Directorate-General IB, residing in Caracas,
the change in the list of successful candidates, the                   contests the refusal of the appointing authority to appoint
 applicant finds this rather curious given the small number            him to the post of Head of the Commission's Delegation
 of candidates ( 12 ) who were admitted to the oral test.              in San Jose ( Costa Rica ), advertised in vacancy notice
 However, most curious of all in the opinion of the                    COM/121 /95 as an A5/A4 post .
 applicant is the unilateral nature of the decisions adopted
 by the jury. Under all administrative systems , once the list          In support of his contentions, the applicant advances the
 of successful candidates has been published , no authority             following three pleas :


title: Case T-334/12: Action brought on 25 July 2012 — Plantavis and NEM v Commission and EFSA

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/9

         Action brought on 25 July 2012 — Plantavis and NEM v Commission and EFSA
   (Case T-334/12)
   2012/C 311/11
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Plantavis GmbH (Berlin, Germany) and NEM, Verband mittelständischer europäischer Hersteller und Distributoren von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln & Gesundheitsprodukten e.V. (Laudert, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Food Safety Authority

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the prohibitions laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1) in conjunction with Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 (2) and the European Commission’s Union Register in respect of permitted and prohibited health claims.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the application the applicants claim, first, that the European legislature lacks the competence to adopt the contested regulations.
   Second, the applicants submit that Regulations No 1924/2006 and No 432/2012 and the Union Register of nutrition and health claims made on foods interfere unlawfully in the food industry’s legal positions, which are protected as fundamental rights, and in consumers’ and the trade’s right to information. In that regard, the applicants submit in particular that the prohibitions of nutrition and health claims laid down by the contested regulations are disproportionate. That applies above all to the prohibition of the use of factually accurate nutritional health claims such as, for example, ‘better bioavailability’. Further, the Regulations are not appropriate to their intended purpose, as EFSA and the Commission have not established a clear, transparent or uniform approach in relation to the establishment of scientific standards. The applicants also complain about the undifferentiated unequal treatment of different substances and food businesses. Nor are the prohibitions necessary, as Directive 2003/13/EC (3) and Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (4) already prohibit the misleading advertising of food in all European Member States.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Directive 2003/13/EC of 10 February 2003 amending Directive 96/5/EC on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 33).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18).


title: Case C-238/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.9.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/11
Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second                         (Belgium) — Section d’administration by judgment of that
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Merck, Sharp and
Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and                                           Dohme BV against État belge
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-245/03)
                        (Case C-238/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/18)
                          (2003/C 213/17)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003                 (Belgium) — Section d’administration (Council of State —
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Administrative Section) of 9 May 2003, received at the Court
European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl                    Registry on 10 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
and Commission of the European Communities was brought                    of Merck, Sharp and Dohme BV against Etat belge on the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                following question:
27 May 2003 by Maja srl, represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni
and G. Arendt, lawyers.
                                                                          Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
                                                                          further 90 days, mentioned in the first subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
                                                                          prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance               in the scope of national health insurance systems (1), be
      (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2003 and consequently                  regarded as a merely indicative time-limit or as a mandatory
      annul also the measure appealed against at first instance;          time-limit and, if the time-limit is mandatory, what are the
                                                                          consequences of exceeding it as regards the response to be
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings                 given to the application for inclusion of a medicinal product
      before the Court of Justice and at first instance.                  in the list of medicinal products covered by the health
                                                                          insurance system?
                                                                          Must exceeding the time-limit be deemed to constitute
Pleas and main arguments                                                  inclusion in the abovementioned list?
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
infringement of Regulation No 4028/86 ( 1) and implementing
Regulation No 1116/88 ( 2), as interpreted in the light of the
‘comitology’ decision; defective and illogical grounds; breach
of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and of
legal expectations; manifest inconsistency and contradiction;             Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
absence of correspondence between the remedy sought and
the judgment; breach of the obligation to state the reasons on
which the judgment is based, laid down in Article 33 of the                                        (Case C-258/03)
EC Statute of the Court of Justice as referred to in Article 46 of
the Statute itself; breach of the principle of rights of the
defence; breach of essential procedural requirements; breach                                       (2003/C 213/19)
of the general principles of delegated authority.
( 1) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.                                                 An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.                                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by M. Condou Durande, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-407/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of 5 August 1999 in the case of Vetharanigam Pathminidevi v Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank

text:
C 34/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                  nationals of a non-member country if such persons have
under Articles 6(2), 8(2)(a), 13 and 17 of Directive 75/439/EEC               no right of free movement under the Treaty of 25 March
as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC and under the                      1957 establishing the European Community, as amended
first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph of                      by the Treaty of 7 February 1992 on European Union?
Article 249 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
(b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              If a person living with a employed person, who is a
                                                                              recognised refugee, in a cohabitation relationship similar
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               to marriage and who looks after and raises the couple’s
                                                                              child also to be regarded as a member of the family
                                                                              within the meaning of Article 1(f)(i) of Regulation (EEC)
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                              No 1408/71?
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                         3. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and
                                                                              Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply in the case
forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. That period,
                                                                              where a refugee has travelled directly to a Member State
which is laid down in Article 2 of Directive 87/101/EEC,
                                                                              from a non-member country and has not moved within
expired on 1 January 1990 without Portugal having so far
                                                                              the Community?
brought into force the abovementioned provisions.
                                                                         4. If the answers to Questions 1 and 3 are in the affirmative,
(1) Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and                but Question 2 falls to be answered in the negative:
    dangerous waste (OJ 1978 L 84, p. 43).
(2) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975            Do provisions of Community law preclude national rules
    L 194, p. 39).                                                            under which, even in the event of recognition as a refugee,
(3) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending                    entitlement to family benefits cannot exist retroactively
    Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).                      but arises only once a residence permit has been issued?
(4) Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazard-
    ous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20).
(5) Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal         (1) JO L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2 ; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
    of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23).                                    p. 416.
(6) Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 amending
    Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1987 L
    42, p. 43).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
                                                                         gericht by order of that Court of 5 August 1999 in the
                                                                         case of Akhtar Seyed Abbasy against Landeskreditbank
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                                 Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank
gericht by order of 5 August 1999 in the case of Vetharani-
gam Pathminidevi v Landeskreditbank Baden-Württem-
                                                                                (Case C-425/99)
                         berg-Förderbank
                                                                                (2000/C 34/19)
                         (Case C-407/99)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2000/C 34/18)
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundessocialgericht
                                                                         (Federal Social Court) of 5 August 1999, received at the Court
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   registry on 3 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
European Communities by order of 5 August 1999 from the                  the case of Akhtar Seyed Abbasy against Landeskreditbank
Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was received           Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank, on the following question:
at the Court Registry on 25 October 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Vetharanigam Pathminidevi v Landeskre-             1. Is Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the Council of
ditbank Baden-Württemberg-Förderbank on the following                         14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
questions:                                                                    to employed persons and their families moving within the
                                                                              Community applicable to refugees and members of their
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June                    family who are nationals of a third country if they do not
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to                    enjoy the right of freedom of movement under the Treaty
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-                   establishing the European Communities of 25 March
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply                 1957, as amended by the Treaty on European Union of
     to refugees and to members of their families who are                     7 February 1992?


title: Case T-205/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/34

         Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

   (Case T-205/16)
   (2016/C 251/40)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania, represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and D. Stepanienė

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision No C(2016)969 final of 23 February 2016 concerning the reduction in support from the Cohesion Fund for the project carried out in Lithuania and entitled ‘Technical assistance for Cohesion Fund management in the Republic of Lithuania’ (2005LT16CPA001) to the extent that it provides for a reduction in support in the amount of EUR 137 864,61;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the Republic of Lithuania relies on a ground which relates to an infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation No 16/2003, (1) in conjunction with the principle of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the European Commission, in deciding to reduce the support from the 2000-2006 EU Cohesion Fund:

               —

               failed to take into account the fact that the VAT costs incurred as a result of implementing Commission Decision No C(2005)5291 (2) approving the project ‘Technical assistance for Cohesion Fund management in the Republic of Lithuania’ (‘the project’) were eligible for reimbursement in accordance with the requirements of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 16/2003 and other requirements;

               —

               wrongly interpreted Article 11(3) of Regulation No 16/2003 as being applicable to the project because, regardless of the question whether the VAT costs must be reimbursed, such an interpretation is inconsistent with Article 11(1) of Regulation No 16/2003 and lacks legal logic and practical applicability in connection with the financing of Cohesion Fund projects;

               —

               failed to consider Article 3(2) of Commission Decision No C(2005)5291, which provides that, pursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1164/94, (3) Community assistance was prescribed for 100 % of the project value (that is to say, no contribution by the person carrying out the project was envisaged) and the Member State could reasonably expect that the project would be financed in full by funds from the Cohesion Fund, that is to say, that all of the rules laid down by Regulation No 16/2003 would be applied in a proper manner.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 16/2003 of 6 January 2003 laying down special detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards eligibility of expenditure in the context of measures part-financed by the Cohesion Fund (OJ 2003 L 2, p. 7).

      (2)  Commission Decision No C(2005) 5291 of 8 December 2005 concerning the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project concerning Technical Assistance for Cohesion Fund Management in the Republic of Lithuania governing CCI 2005/LT/16/C/PA/001, as amended by Commission Decision No C(2008) 1566 of 15 April 2008 and Commission Decision No C(2011) 3668 of 20 May 2011.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1), repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 79).


title: Case C-77/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden by order of that court of 15 February 2000 in the case of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against Viscondense Construcoes, Lda.

text:
C 135/8                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.5.2000
The Second Appellant (Republica SA) will argue that the Court                 (a) provide for a length of leave which exceeds the
of First Instance erred in law in that it considered that the                     minimum length of annual leave laid down in Council
Council had given an adequate statement of reasons for the                        Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 con-
determination of the margin of dumping in the case of the                         cerning certain aspects of the organisation of working
Second Appellant.                                                                 time;
                                                                                and/or
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998, p. 19.
(3) of the Council, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on                (b) allow employers resident in Germany to claim the
    imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy              reimbursement of expenditure on holiday pay and
    steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic,             holiday allowances from joint bodies of the parties to
    Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)                   the collective agreements whereas, in the case of
    No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such                  employers resident abroad, they do not provide for
    imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997, L 322,               such a claim but instead for a direct claim by the
    p. 1).
                                                                                posted workers against the joint bodies of the parties
                                                                                to the collective agreements;
                                                                                and/or
                                                                              (c) in connection with the social fund scheme to be
                                                                                complied with under those collective agreements,
                                                                                impose on employers resident abroad obligations to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht                          provide information to the joint bodies of the parties
Wiesbaden by order of that court of 15 February 2000                              to the collective agreements whereby the amount of
in the case of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der                               information to be given exceeds the amount required
   Bauwirtschaft against Viscondense Construcoes, Lda.                            from employers resident in Germany?
                           (Case C-77/00)                                 3. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be
                                                                              interpreted as infringed by Paragraph 1(4) of the Arbeit-
                                                                              nehmerentsendegesetz, under which — for the purposes of
                          (2000/C 135/14)
                                                                              classifying businesses as covered by a collective agreement
                                                                              which has been declared generally binding and which,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        under the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of that Law, also
European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour                   applies to employers resident abroad and their workers
Court) Wiesbaden of 15 February 2000, received at the Court                   who have been posted to the area within which that
Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case                collective agreement applies — all workers posted to
of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against                 Germany, but only those workers, are treated as a business,
Viscondense Construcoes, Lda. on the following questions:                     while a different definition of a business applies to
                                                                              employers resident in Germany, which in certain cases
                                                                              results in different businesses falling within the field of
1. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                          application of the generally binding collective agreement?
     interpreted as infringed by a provision of national law —
     the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the Arbeitnehmer-
     entsendegesetz (Law on the Posting of Workers) — which               4. Is Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 96/71/EC (2) of the European
     extends the application of provisions of collective agree-               Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
     ments which have been declared generally binding con-                    concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
     cerning the collection of contributions and the grant of                 provision of services to be interpreted as in any event,
     benefits in connection with workers’ holiday entitlements                having regard to the correct interpretation of Articles 48,
     by joint bodies of parties to collective agreements, and                 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, neither requiring nor
     thus the provisions of those agreements concerning the                   permitting the rules at issue in Questions 1, 2 and 3?
     scheme to be complied with in that regard, to employers
     resident abroad and their workers who have been posted
     to the area within which those collective agreements apply?
                                                                          (1) OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18.
2. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                      (2) OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.
     interpreted as infringed by the second sentence of Para-
     graph 1(1) and the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the
     Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz which result in the appli-
     cation of provisions of collective agreements declared to
     be generally binding which:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 1998 in Case C-127/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Norbrook Laboratories Limited v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC - Veterinary medicinal products - Marketing authorisation)

text:
13.6.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               1. On a proper construction of the second paragraph
                                                                      of Article 5 of Council Directive 81/851/EEC of
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                      of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
                       of 2 April 1998
                                                                      products, read in conjunction with the other
in Case C-127/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             provisions of that directive and Council Directive 81/
the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Norbrook                    852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation
Laboratories Limited v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries            of the laws of the Member States relating to analytical,
                         and Food (1)                                 pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and
                                                                      protocols in respect of the testing of veterinary
(Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC Ð Veterinary                    medicinal products, the competent authority is not
      medicinal products Ð Marketing authorisation)                   authorised to require particulars and documents other
                                                                      than those expressly listed in that provision, as set out
                        (98/C 184/01)                                 in detail in the Annex to Directive 81/852/EEC. More
                                                                      particularly, the competent authority is not authorised
                                                                      to require an applicant for marketing authorisation
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      Ð to disclose the name(s) and address(es) of the
                                                                          manufacturer(s) of a substance used in the
                                                                          manufacture of one of the active ingredients of the
                                                                          medicinal product concerned and information
In Case C-127/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          concerning the manufacturing site(s), unless
of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal in Northern
                                                                          disclosure of that information constitutes the only
Ireland (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                          reliable means of obtaining a particular required
proceedings pending before that court between Norbrook
                                                                          by Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC;
Laboratories Limited and Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food Ð on the interpretation and validity of
Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on                  Ð to disclose the results of tests carried out on each
the approximation of the laws of the Member States                        batch of such a substance with a view to approval
relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317 of                    thereof; or
6.11.1981, p. 1) and Council Directive 81/852/EEC of
28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to analytical, pharmaco-                   Ð to purchase the active ingredient from a specified
toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in                     third party.
respect of the testing of veterinary medicinal products (OJ
L 317 of 6.11.1981, p. 16) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.                 Part 1(C) of the Annex to Directive 81/852/EEC does,
Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and             however, allow particulars to be required of the
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-                   manufacturing process and control testing methods
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            used by the manufacturer of a starting material. In
given a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which it has ruled:              that regard, it is for the national court to determine
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.6.98
   whether the said substance is a starting material                     relating to similar domestic claims and must not be so
   within the meaning of the first paragraph of that                     framed as to make it in practice impossible or
   provision. If it is not, such particulars may                         excessively difficult to obtain reparation.
   nevertheless be required in so far as the features of the
   process by which the starting material is manufactured           (1) OJ C 174, 8.7.1995.
   from the substance are such that no other means of
   assessing the purity of the starting material is
   available. Where the competent authority requires an
   applicant for marketing authorisation to provide
   information under Article 9, point 3, of Directive 81/
   851/EEC, the time-limits laid down in Article 8 of
   that directive are to be suspended until that                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   information is provided.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
2. The fact that the process by which a medicinal
   product is manufactured is continuous or other than              in Case C-230/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
   continuous does not affect the answers to the first              the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Cabour SA and Nord
   question.                                                        Distribution Automobile SA, supported by Automobiles
                                                                    Peugeot SA and Automobiles CitroeÈn SA v. Arnor SOCO'
                                                                                SARL (1)
3. The competent authority is not authorised to exempt
   an applicant for marketing authorisation from                    (Competition Ð Vehicle distribution Ð Validity of
   providing a particular or document required under                exclusive dealership agreement Ð Article 85(1) and (3) of
   Article 5 of Directive 81/851/EEC even if it appears             the EC Treaty Ð Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 Ð
   practically impossible, in a given case, to obtain that                          Regulation (EC) No 1475/95)
   information.                                                                              (98/C 184/02)
4. Consideration of the fourth question has disclosed no                            (Language of the case: French)
   factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, in the
   light of the principle of proportionality, of points 3, 4
   or 9 of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Directive             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   81/851/EEC or Part 1(A), (B) or (C) of the Annex to                        published in the European Court Reports)
   Directive 81/852/EEC.
                                                                    In Case C-230/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
5. Consideration of the fifth question has disclosed no             of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel (Court of
   factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, in the          Appeal), Douai, France, for a preliminary ruling in the
   light of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty, of                  proceedings pending before that court between Cabour SA
   Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC.                            and Nord Distribution Automobile SA, supported by
                                                                    Automobiles Peugeot SA and Automobiles CitroeÈn SA and
                                                                    Arnor SOCO' SARL Ð on the interpretation of
6. Article 40 of Directive 81/851/EEC must be                       Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty and certain provisions of
   interpreted as meaning that a request for further                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
   information based on Article 9, point 3, of that                 1984 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EEC
   directive need not state the reasons on which it is              Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution
   based.                                                           and servicing agreements (OJ L 15 of 18.1.1985, p. 16),
                                                                    and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of
                                                                    28 June 1995 (OJ L 145 of 29.6.1995, p. 25) Ð the Court
7. A Member State is required to make good loss and                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President
   damage caused to an applicant for marketing                      of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. F.
   authorisation as a result of requests for information            Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.
   and requirements which infringe Directives 81/851/               Tesauro, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
   EEC and 81/852/EEC where the rule of Community                   Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
   law infringed is intended to confer rights on                    judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
   individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there
   is a direct causal link between that breach and the
   damage sustained by the individuals concerned.                   1. On a proper construction of Article 5(2)(1)(a) and (b)
   Subject to that reservation, it is on the basis of rules of           of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of
   national law on liability that the State must make                    12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85(3)
   reparation for the consequences of the loss and                       of the EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor
   damage caused by a breach of Community law for                        vehicle distribution and servicing agreements, the
   which it can be held responsible, with the proviso that               exemption granted by the regulation applies to a
   the conditions laid down by the applicable national                   clause in an exclusive dealership agreement which does
   legislation must not be less favourable than those                    no more than provide that the parties may, in order to


title: Case F-110/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Carpi Badía v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/48

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Carpi Badía v Commission
   (Case F-110/06)
   (2006/C 281/85)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José María Carpi Badía (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to allocate to the applicant an insufficient number of priority points to allow his promotion in the 2005 promotion procedure and not to promote him in that promotion procedure, as confirmed by the Decision of 6 June 2006, rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/74/06;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on in this case are almost identical to those relied on in Case F-109/06, the notice concerning which is published in this issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.


title: Case F-42/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Esneau-Kappé v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/71

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Esneau-Kappé v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-42/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/133)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Anne Esneau-Kappé (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

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

         Re:

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

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Esneau-Kappé a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 180, of 01.08.09., p 63


title: Case C-269/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Hamburg, by order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the cases of Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v JÜTRO Konservenfabrik GmbH

text:
2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 281/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                        — order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets
Hamburg, by order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the                            of proceedings.
cases of Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengsten-
berg GmbH & Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v
               JÜTRO Konservenfabrik GmbH                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-269/99)                                 The Court of First Instance, basing its decision on incorrect
                                                                         premisses, namely an erroneous characterisation and interpret-
                         (1999/C 281/08)                                 ation of certain provisions laid down in regulations, in
                                                                         particular Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   officials, failed in the present case to penalise the unlawfulness
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Hamburg                 of non-compliance with strict time-limits, thereby disregarding
(District Court, Hamburg) of 23 June 1999, received at the               the principles of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence.
Court on 19 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH &
Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v JÜTRO Konservenfa-
brik GmbH on the following question:
Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 (1) of 18 March
1999 supplementing, by the addition of the designation
‘Spreewälder Gurken’, the Annex to Regulation (EC)                       Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission
No 1107/96 (2) on the registration of geographical indications           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in                                            Belgium
Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3) compatible with
European Community law?                                                                            (Case C-271/99)
(1) OJ L 74 of 19.3.1999, p. 8.                                                                    (1999/C 281/10)
(2) OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July
                                                                         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                         Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                         of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Appeal brought on 19 July 1999 by the Z against the
judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by the First Chamber
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-242/97 between Z and the European                         the Court should:
                            Parliament
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
                        (Case C-270/99 P)
                                                                             trative measures necessary in order to comply with Council
                                                                             Directive 95/71/EC of 22 December 1995 amending the
                         (1999/C 281/09)                                     Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health
                                                                             conditions for the production and the placing on the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by                    market of fishery products (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive
European Communities in Case T-242/97 between Z and the                      95/71/EC;
European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 19 July 1999 by Z, represent-             (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
ed by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
    declare and rule that                                                of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
                                                                         is such as to oblige Member States to which directives are
    — the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order to
         European Communities (First Chamber) of 4 May 1999              implement those directives before the expiration of the
         in Case T-242/97 Z v European Parliament is to be               time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in question
         annulled;                                                       expired on 1 July 1997 but Belgium has not adopted the
                                                                         necessary measures.
    adjudicating on the case afresh, declare that
    — the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament            (1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 40.
         of 28 October 1996, imposing on the appellant the
         disciplinary measure of downgrading from grade C 1,
         step 4, to grade C 5, step 1, is to be annulled;


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2004 in Case C-209/02: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Directive 92/43/EEC — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Habitat of the corncrake — "Wörschacher Moos" special protection area)

text:
C 71/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               20.3.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            Articles 7(h) of Directive 93/89 and 7(9) of Directive 1999/
                                                                                62 may not, be relied upon by individuals against State
                                                                                authorities so far as concerns the calculating of tolls for vehicles
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                         having a laden weight of at least 12 tonnes used for the carriage
                                                                                of goods for the full itinerary of the Austrian Brenner motorway
                         of 5 February 2004                                        when the Directives have not been transposed, or have been
                                                                                imperfectly transposed, into domestic law.
in Case C-157/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                         3.    Austrian hauliers, like the hauliers of the other Member States,
from the Oberster Gerichtshof ): Rieser Internationale                             may rely on Articles 7(b) of Directive 93/89 and 7(4) of
Transporte GmbH v Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-                                  Directive 1999/62 in order to claim that because of the
                 Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) (1)                                    (excessive) rate for the full itinerary on the Austrian Brenner
                                                                                motorway they suffer discrimination in comparison with road
                                                                                users using parts only of the itinerary on that motorway.
(Carriage of goods by road — Tolls — Brenner motorway —
Prohibition of discrimination — Discrimination on grounds                    4.    The judgment in Case C-21/94 Parliament v Council must be
of the nationality of the haulier or of the origin or destination                  interpreted as preserving the effects of Directive 93/89 until
                             of the vehicle)                                       20 July 1999, the date on which Directive 1999/62 entered
                                                                                into force.
                            (2004/C 71/05)                                   5.    During the period from 20 July 1999 to 1 July 2000, the
                                                                                Member States were required to refrain from taking any
                                                                                measures liable gravely to jeopardise the attainment of the result
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                prescribed by Directive 1999/62 but individuals could not rely
                                                                                on that Directive against the Member States before national
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             courts in order to have a pre-existing national rule incompatible
                    in the European Court Reports)                                 with the Directive disapplied.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
In Case C-157/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Rieser Internationale Transporte GmbH and Autobahnen- und
Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag), on the interpret-
ation of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles
used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges                                          (Second Chamber)
for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32)
and Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of                                            of 29 January 2004
the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods
vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187,              in Case C-209/02: Commission of the European Communi-
p. 42), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,                                     ties v Republic of Austria (1)
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,                 (Directive 92/43/EEC — Failure of a Member State to fulfil
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             obligations — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:                                   fauna and flora — Habitat of the corncrake — ‘Wörschacher
                                                                                Moos’ special protection area)
1.    When contracts are concluded with road users, the provisions of                                    (2004/C 71/06)
      a directive capable of having direct effect may be relied upon
      against a legal person governed by private law where the State
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      has entrusted to that legal person the task of levying tolls for
      the use of public road networks and where it has direct or
      indirect control of that legal person.                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    Articles 7(b) of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
      1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain
      vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and          In Case C-209/02, Commission of the European Communities
      charges for the use of certain infrastructures and 7(4) of             (Agent: J.C. Schieferer), with an address for service in Luxem-
      Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the             bourg, v Republic of Austria (Agent: C. Pesendorfer), with an
      Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods                 address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a declar-
      vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures may, but               ation that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 71/5
course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria                   with an address for service in Luxembourg, v United Kingdom
despite a negative assessment of the implications for the                       of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji):
habitat of the corncrake (crex crex) in the special protection                  Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
area, within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                       with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), situated in that district, the Republic of               safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3)                 and the general public against the dangers arising from
and (4), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/                ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) in its whole territory,
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural                            or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the                 Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,                         ern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                              directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric, Judges;                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges;
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:                                       A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                                judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:
1.     Declares that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf
       course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria            1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
       despite a negative assessment of its implications for the habitat             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       of the corncrake (crex crex) in the ‘Wörschacher Moos’ special                comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down
       protection area situated in that district and classified as provided          basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
       for in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April                   and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
       1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Austria               radiation in its whole territory, the United Kingdom of Great
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and (4), in           Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
       conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of                 under that directive;
       21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
       wild fauna and flora;                                                    2.   Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to pay the costs.
2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
(1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Court, Bitonto by order of that court of 21 November
                                                                                2003 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd
                                                                                Adriatico Assicurazioni
                           (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-509/03)
                           of 29 January 2004
                                                                                (2004/C 71/08)
in Case C-218/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                 Ireland (1)
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                    European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and                         Bitonto of 21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry
the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing                    on 4 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      radiation — Failure to transpose in whole territory)                      Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni. The
                                                                                Magistrates’ Court, Bitonto asks the Court to give a ruling on
                                                                                the following questions:
                              (2004/C 71/07)
                                                                                1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
                     (Language of the case: English)                                 Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
                                                                                in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
                                                                                Regionale (Regional Administrative Court), Lazio (Rome)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
In Case C-218/02, Commission of the European Communities                             full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
(Agents: initially T.F. Cusack, and, subsequently, X. Lewis),                        particular of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC?


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T: 220/02 (1)

   (2004/C 228/105)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 12 May 2004, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge: M.E. Martins Ribeiro), has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-220/02, Antonio Silva v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-515/15 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2015 by Roland SE against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2015 in Case T-631/14 Roland SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/6

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2015 by Roland SE against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2015 in Case T-631/14 Roland SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-515/15 P)
   (2016/C 326/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Roland SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   Christian Louboutin
   By order of 14 April 2016 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 March 1996 in Case T-146/94: Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - Obligations - Acts incompatible with the dignity of the public service - Duty to act in good faith - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post)

text:
13 . 4 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 108/9
     candidatures for the posts declared vacant by Notice               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     No C] 68/92, and the defendant's decision of 27 June                                     of 7 March 1996
     1994, in so far as it rejects the part of complaint               in Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors of
     Cont. 12/94-R lodged against that decision;
                                                                                the European Communities ( 1 )
4 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                        (Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible with the
                                                                       dignity of the public service — Duty to act in good faith —
5 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs, and one                      Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
     quarter of the applicant's costs, and the applicant to                                      ( 96/C 108/ 19 )
     bear three-quarters of his own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                       In Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams, a former official of the
                                                                       Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                       Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis, v. Court
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :
                        of 6 March 1996                                Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) —
in Case T-93 /94 : Michael Becker v . Court of Auditors of the         application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Court of Auditors of 24 June 1993 removing the applicant
                                                                       from his post without reduction or withdrawal of his
(Officials — Classification in step — Seniority — Equal                entitlement to a retirement pension, second, of the decision
treatment — Duty to have regard to the interests of                    of 24 January 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and,
                               officials)                              third, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision of
                           ( 96/C 108/ 18 )                            23 January 1994 impliedly rejecting that complaint — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                       R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garci'a-Valdecasas and
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       J. Azizi , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in
In Case T-93/94 : Michael Becker, an official at the Court             which it :
of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
in Luxembourg, represented by Roy Nathan, of the                       1 , dismisses the action;
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis, v-.
Court of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :               2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan Inghelram ) — application for
the annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
concerning his classification in step — the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , annuls the refusal of the Court of Auditors to reclassify                                of 7 March 1996
     the applicant in step, pursuant to Council Regulation
     (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 3947/92 of 21 December                    in Case T-362/94: Jan Robert De Rijk v. Commission of the
     1 992 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and                               European Communities ( ] )
     the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the              (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
     European Communities, with effect from 1 January                   officials posted outside the Communities — Procedure for
     1993 , as he had requested by letter of 5 February 1993,                       reimbursement of medical expenses)
     together with the Court of Auditors ' decision of                                            ( 96/C 108/20 )
     2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
     against that refusal;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 2 , orders the Court ofAuditors to bear its own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the applicant.                           In Case T-362/94 : Jan Robert De Rijk, an official of the
                                                                        European Communities, residing at Helsinki , represented
                                                                        by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                        SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian


title: Case C-488/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Sixth VAT Directive — Deduction of input tax — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Deductible proportion — Calculation — Methods laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) — Obligation to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1))

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/19

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-488/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions - Deductible proportion - Calculation - Methods laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) - Obligation to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1))
   (2009/C 44/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Royal Bank of Scotland plc

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — Interpretation of Articles 17(5) and 19(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Calculation of the deductible proportion — Rules on rounding up
   Operative part of the judgment
   Member States are not obliged to apply the rounding up rule in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment where the proportion of input tax deductible is calculated in accordance with one of the special methods in (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-206/13: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Stance v OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/17

         Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Stance v OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)
   (Case T-206/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 339/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad Andhra Pradesh, India)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 February 2013 (Case R 885/2012-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Pokarna Ltd and Stance, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 169, 13.7.2002

text:
C 180/36        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         27.7.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 180/64)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 169, 13.7.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 156, 29.6.2002
         OJ C 144, 15.6.2002
         OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
         OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
         OJ C 109, 4.5.2002
         OJ C 97, 20.4.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex