title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio, Salonika (Third section) by judgment of that court of 24 October 1996 in the case of Covita AVE against the Greek State (Case C-370/96)

text:
No C 74/ 10             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          relevant to the subject-matter under examination, the
                        ( Fourth Chamber)                                       case where an importer acting in good faith and with
                                                                                the authorization of the customs authority took
                      of 28 November 1996
                                                                                delivery of and placed into circulation products
in Case C-2 77/95 P: Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz v.                              imported from a non-member State, without paying
          Commission of the European Communities (')                            the countervailing charge imposed by Commission
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1591/92 ( 3 ), where that omission
(Officials — Time-limit for the bringing of an action for                       is attributable to the fact that the competent customs
damages by the spouse or child of an official — Principle                       authority was not aware of the existence of that
           of res judicata — Manifest inadmissibility)                          Regulation owing either to the lack of any machinery
                             ( 97/C 74/ 17 )                                    for punctual communication to it of the applicability
                                                                                of a Community rule having direct application or to a
                 (Language of the case: German)                                 failure of coordination between the Community and
                                                                                national bodies involved, or to any other reason
                                                                                unconnected with any action taken by the importer, or
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                does the adoption of the Regulation afford sufficient
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                warrant on its own for the post-clearance imposition
                                                                                of the countervailing charge ?
In Case C-277/95 P: an appeal against the order of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        2.   Are the time-limits laid down in Articles 3 and 5
( Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 1995 in Cases T-462/93 ,
T-464/93       and   T-470/93       Lenz     v.  Commission,     not
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1854/85 (4 ) for
                                                                                determining customs duty preclusive in the sense that
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings                        the expiry thereof with action not having been taken
                                                                                nullifies the right of the customs authorities to
being: Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Julian Curall, assisted by Bertrand Wagenbaur, of the                           determine and collect the countervailing charge ?
                                                                                Furthermore, in the absence of exceptional
Hamburg Bar ), — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
                                                                                circumstances or a situation of force majeure, can the
of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                                lapse of time amounting to upwards of five months
C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; A. La
                                                                                from the time when the customs authority became
Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                                aware of the situation and was in a position to
a judgment on 28 November 1996 in which it:
                                                                                calculate the amount due be regarded as exceeding a
                                                                                reasonable period within which it ought to have
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                       acted ?
2 . orders Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz to pay the costs.                    3 . Does the imposition of the countervailing charge in
                                                                                issue concern solely fresh dessert cherries or also
(>) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                              cherries intended for industrial processing ?
                                                                           (') OJ  No  L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) OJ  No  L 197,  3 . 8 . 1979, p . 1 .
                                                                           (3) OJ  No  L 168 , 23 . 6 . 1992 , p . 18 .
                                                                           (4) OJ  No  L 186 , 30 . 6 . 1989, p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,
Salonika (Third section ) by judgment of that court of
24 October 1996 in the case of Covita AVE against the
                              Greek State
                          ( Case C-3 70/96 )
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                             ( 97/C 74/18 )                                Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           court of 9 December 1996 in the commercial registration
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case brought by the European Information Technology
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko                               Observatory, a European Economic Interest Group
Efetio (Administrative Court of Appeal ), Salonika (Third                                              ( Case C-402/96 )
section ) of 24 October 1996, received at the Court
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/ 19 )
Registry on 25 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Covita AVE against the Greek State on the
following questions :                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
1 . May the terms ' special circumstances' and 'error made                 Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court ) Frankfurt am
     by the competent authorities' used in Article 13 of                   Main of 9 December 1996 , which was received at the
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 (') and Article 5               Court Registry on 23 December 1996 , for a preliminary
     ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (2 )                   ruling in the commercial registration case brought by the
    respectively be interpreted as including, each one                     European Information Technology Observatory, a
     separately or in conjunction both with each other and                 European Economic Interest Group on the following
    such other provisions or principles as may be                          question:


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2004 in Case C-116/03 P: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post with entitlement to old-age pension — Pursuit of outside activities without prior authorisation)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/9

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 9 July 2004
   in Case C-116/03 P: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeals - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post with entitlement to old-age pension - Pursuit of outside activities without prior authorisation)
   (2004/C 273/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-116/03 P: August Fichtner, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Besozzo (Italy) (Avocats: F. Colussi and M. Tamburini) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2003, Fichtner v Commission (T-75/00 ECR p. II-51), seeking to have the judgment set aside, the other parties in the procedures being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) A. Borg Barthet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Fichtner to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case T-640/16: Action brought on 8 September 2016 — GEA Group v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/49

         Action brought on 8 September 2016 — GEA Group v Commission
   (Case T-640/16)
   (2016/C 392/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont and C. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 June 2016, C(2016)3920, amending decision C(2009)8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA (AT.38589 — Heat Stabilisers);

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine and set a new date for due payment and interest (after adoption of the contested decision), and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, by adopting the contested decision although the limitation period had elapsed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 266(1) TFUE and the applicant’s right of defence as the applicant was not granted the opportunity to develop its views orally.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 as it did not apply the 10 % cap to the applicant, and as it applied the cap to another infringer to the detriment of the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment as it held the applicant solely liable for a conduct for which other infringers were found to be responsible while the applicant’s liability is only derivative, and because it distributed the extra burden arising from the other infringer’s reduced liability exclusively to the detriment of the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires by setting retroactively a deadline for payment for a date at which no valid legal basis for payment existed, and that the Commission failed to state reasons according to Article 296(2) TFUE as it did not explain for what reasons it deviates from its practice.


title: Case C-525/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2006 — NV De Nationale Loterij v BVBA Customer Service Agency

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2006 — NV De Nationale Loterij v BVBA Customer Service Agency
   (Case C-525/06)
   (2007/C 42/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NV De Nationale Loterij

      Defendant: BVBA Customer Service Agency
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that restrictive national provisions, such as Article 37 of the Law of 19 April 2002, which obstruct the access to the market of an undertaking wishing to sell for profit group participation forms in Euro Millions, are still permitted having regard to the public interest (prevention of squandering through gaming), in the knowledge that:

                           (a)

                           the Nationale Loterij, which acquired a statutory monopoly from the Belgian State and pays a monopoly rent for it and which has the objective of channelling man's inherent compulsion to gamble, regularly advertises participation in Euro Millions thereby in reality strengthening that compulsion;

                           (b)

                           the regular advertising by Nationale Loterij and its sales methods have a foreclosure effect, in which the Nationale Loterij is induced to maximise turnover (financial reasons) rather than channel the citizens' inherent compulsion to gamble;

                           (c)

                           less obstructive measures, such as restriction of possible stakes and winnings, would better achieve the objective pursued, namely the channelling of the inherent compulsion to gamble?

               2.

               Is a restrictive national provision such as Article 37 of the Law of 19 April 2002, which prevents the access to the market of an undertaking intending to sell, for profit, group participation forms in Euro Millions, contrary to the freedom to provide services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) where the defendant itself does not organise a lottery but in fact seeks to organise, for profit, merely participation as a group in Euro Millions via the Nationale Loterij's own participation forms?


title: Case T-800/14: Action brought on 9 December 2014 — Philip Morris v Commission

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/25

         Action brought on 9 December 2014 — Philip Morris v Commission
   (Case T-800/14)
   (2015/C 056/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision Ares (2014) 3188066, dated 29 September 2014, in so far as it refused to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception however, of the redacted personal data contained therein;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision Ares(2014) 3188066 of 29 September 2014, whereby the Commission refused to grant the applicant full access to nine internal documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (1) (the ‘Contested Decision’).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons by failing to explain — for each document and redaction — which relevant exception of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) it applied and on the basis of what factual circumstances and considerations. By relying on the same overall blanket arguments to justify its refusal on the grounds of the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, the Commission failed to state the reasons why disclosure of the requested documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine each of these interests. More specifically, the Contested Decision does not explain whether the justification invoked for each relevant refusal is ‘court proceedings’ or ‘legal advice’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 4(2) second indent of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show how disclosure in each case would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of ‘legal advice’ or ‘court proceedings’. As regards the protection of ‘legal advice’, the Commission’s abstract justifications have all been dismissed in case law and the Commission provided no concrete explanation showing why, in this case, full disclosure of the requested documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of legal advice. As regards ‘court proceedings’, the Commission again failed to explain, concretely, why disclosure would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of ‘court proceedings’. A fortiori, the Commission failed to carry out a detailed and specific assessment of whether an overriding public interest could justify the disclosure of the requested documents.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the Commission breached the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show that the relevant documents/redactions contain ‘opinions for internal use’, by failing to explain how disclosure of these documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of the decision-making process and by failing to properly balance the interest invoked against the overriding public interest in disclosure.

      (1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ, 2014, L 127, p. 1.

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


title: Case T-164/01: Action brought on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.9.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucac-
                                                                          cioni, represented by Mauro Cimino.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 September
      2000 not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 in the
      1999 promotions procedure;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order compensation for biological and non-material
                                                                                damage, caused by the defendant between 1967 and
                                                                                1990, irrespective of (or under) Article 73 of the Staff
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Regulations, as a result of the inexcusable fault of the
                                                                                institution, which thus incurs liability, inasmuch as it:
The applicant challenges the decision not to promote him to
Grade A4 in the 1999 promotions procedure.                                      —     caused continuous and culpable bodily harm to the
                                                                                applicant, in that it obliged him to work, giving
                                                                                untrue reassurances, in an environment contamin-
In support of his application, the applicant claims that the                          ated by asbestos, knowing full well that asbestos is
appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment                         harmful even for persons not at risk
by comparing the circumstances of the applicant against the
average staff report results for the directorate to which he was
posted. Moreover, the decision is allegedly based on the sole                   —     deliberately attempted to harm the applicant, at the
factor that his Directorate General only had available three                          risk of killing him, which is mentioned only to
posts for promotion to Grade A4 for 1999. Since he was listed                         support the allegation of harm
4th by his Directorate General, the appointing authority
automatically and without examining his merits in comparison
with those of the other candidates eligible for promotion,                      —     deliberately attempted against the applicant’s safety
removed the applicant’s chances of being promoted in that                             at work, by seriously neglecting safety
year.
                                                                                amounting to ITL 7 000 000 000, by analogy with the
The applicant pleads:                                                           amounts ordered in respect of each of the victims
                                                                                (totalling some ITL 1 000 000 000) in the judgment in
                                                                                Case 4840/96 of 5 July 1996 delivered by the Pretura
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                      Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin)
                                                                                and the compensation ordered for each of the victims
—     breach of the principle that officials should have reason-                of the ‘Cermis’ cable car disaster, namely
      able career prospects;                                                    ITL 4 000 000 000.
—     manifest error of assessment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
      discrimination.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant in the present case, the same applicant as in
Action brought on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni                      Case T-165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission (1)? was awarded a
    against Commission of the European Communities                        rate of total permanent invalidity of 130% and was paid the
                                                                          capital at the rate of 100 % under Article 12 of the Joint Rules
                                                                          and compensation at the rate of 30 %, under Article 12 of the
                        (Case T-164/01)                                   same rules. The applicant could no longer, apparently, avail
                                                                          himself of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, since in 1985
                        (2001/C 275/30)                                   the defendant decided that the cumulated total under the two
                                                                          articles could not exceed 100 %. The applicant now seeks
                                                                          compensation for biological and non-material damage suffered
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        during the period from 1967 to 1990 irrespective of (or under)
                                                                          Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, attributable to the conduct
                                                                          of the defendant for the way in which it dealt with the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 problems arising from the presence of asbestos in the Berlay-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                mont building.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.9.2001
The applicant states in that respect that, in Case C-257/98              Pleas in law and main arguments
P Lucaccioni v Commission, the damages sought were exam-
ined by the Court of Justice only in the context of the Staff
Regulations and with regard to occupational diseases. Despite
the fact that the Medical Committee’s report had given the
diagnosis date as January 1990, the Court took the view that             By its decision of 28 March 2001, the Commission ordered
payment of the compensation/interest should be dated from                the Federal Republic of Germany to recover aid totalling
April 1994, the date on which the proceedings were brought               DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH
to a close. It is therefore evident that the Court did not take          and/or its subsidiaries, including Gothaer Fahrzeugwerke
into account the non-material and biological damage suffered             GmbH.
by the applicant and unquestionably caused by the European
Commission from September 1967 until April 1994, or at
least until November 1980, in accordance with the legal rules
currently in force, the Charter of fundamental rights of the
European Union and the Convention on Human Rights.                       Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH’s main activity was in the vehicle
                                                                         construction business. The company’s assets in that area were
                                                                         transferred to the applicant. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         Commission may be acting on the assumption that the
(1) Case T-165/95 Lucaccioniv Commission [1998] ECR FP-IA-               applicant is the (partial) legal successor to Gothaer Fahr-
    203,II-67.
                                                                         zeugwerke GmbH, thereby establishing liability for repayment
                                                                         on the part of the applicant even though only assets were
                                                                         acquired.
                                                                         According to the applicant, Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH,
                                                                         which is currently in liquidation, repaid its share of the total
Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Schmitz-Gotha                          amount of aid to be repaid. If, however, that company were to
                                                                         be declared insolvent, that repayment might be called back
Fahrzeugwerke GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                         into question and the corresponding amount partially or
                     European Communities
                                                                         wholly included in the general insolvency mass. For that
                                                                         reason, the applicant has a legal interest in Commission’s
                         (Case T-167/01)                                 decision being annulled.
                        (2001/C 275/31)
                                                                         The applicant argues that there has been an infringement of
                   (Language of the case: German)                        essential procedural requirements on account of inadequate
                                                                         reasoning for the decision, inasmuch as the Commission holds
                                                                         that the decision enables a requirement for repayment to be
                                                                         established against the applicant. The applicant submits that,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                if the Commission orders in a decision that aid should be
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               reclaimed from certain undertakings named in that decision,
European Communities on 17 July 2001 by Schmitz-Gotha                    that decision is limited solely to those particular undertakings.
Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, Gotha (Germany), represented by                      If, however, the Commission takes the view that other, third-
Martin Matzat, Rechtsanwalt.                                             party, undertakings, which are legally independent and have
                                                                         merely had assets transferred to them, may also be held liable
                                                                         for repayment of the aid, such a view requires that those
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              undertakings be specifically named in the decision itself and
                                                                         that a detailed justification be provided as to why the factual
                                                                         requirements for such liability are present.
—     annul Commission Decision No C 41/99 (ex N 49/95) of
      28 March 2001 in so far as it holds the applicant liable
      in respect of the portion of aid due for repayment
      attributable to Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH;
                                                                         The applicant further argues that, by assuming or declaring
—     in the alternative, should the Commission’s decision not           the applicant to be liable, the Commission has infringed the
      be open to a challenge in part, annul the above decision           Treaty. It maintains, inter alia, that to hold the acquirers of
      in its entirety;                                                   assets unrestrictedly liable is not compatible with Community
                                                                         principles. In particular, such comprehensive liability infringes
                                                                         the principle of proportionality. Moreover, the claims for
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             repayment bore no relation to the assets taken over.


title: Case C-152/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt Osterholz-Scharmbeck

text:
29.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 156/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    Is it in breach of Directive 93/104/EC for a rule of
                                                                              national law to permit a collective agreement or a works
                                                                              agreement based on a collective agreement to allow rest
                                                                              periods, where time is spent on call and stand-by, to be
The period for implementation of the directive expired on                     adapted to the special circumstances of such duties,
14 March 2000.                                                                including in particular reductions in rest periods as a
                                                                              result of work actually being carried out, with these
                                                                              periods of duty being compensated for at other times?
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 307, p. 18.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht Schleswig-Holstein by order of that Court of
25 March 2002 in the case of Landeshauptstadt Kiel
                against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                        hof by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the
                                                                        case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt
                         (Case C-151/02)                                                     Osterholz-Scharmbeck
                         (2002/C 156/12)                                                        (Case C-152/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Holstein Higher Labour Court)
of 25 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 April
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Kiel against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger on the following questions:
                                                                        (Federal Finance Court) of 21 March 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 26 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
1.    Does time spent on call by an employee in a hospital, in          the case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt
      general, constitute working time within the meaning of            Osterholz-Scharmbeck on the following question:
      Article 2(1) of Directive 93/104/EC (1) even where the
      employee is permitted to sleep at times when he is not
      required to work?                                                 Can a taxable person exercise his right to deduct only in
                                                                        respect of the calendar year in which he holds an invoice
                                                                        pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) or
2.    Is it in breach of Article 3 of Directive 93/104/EC for a         must the right to deduct always be exercised (even if retrospec-
      rule of national law to classify time spent on call as a rest     tively) in respect of the calendar year in which the right to
      period unless work is actually carried out, where the             deduct pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC
      employee stays in a room provided in a hospital and               arose?
      works as and when required to do so?
3.    Is it in breach of Directive 93/104/EC for a rule of
      national law to permit a reduction in the daily rest period
      of 11 hours in hospitals and other establishments for the         (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
      treatment, care and supervision of persons, where the
      amount of time actually worked during time spent on
      call or stand-by, not exceeding one half of the rest period,
      is compensated for at other times?


title: Action brought on 23 October 1996 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-171/96)

text:
11 . 1 . 97           1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 9/ 17
Action brought on 23 October 1996 by Comafrica SpA                         ( a ) the reference quantities declared are systematically
and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the                                and materially higher than the quantities actually
           Commission of the European Communities                                imported into the Community during the reference
                         (Case T-171/96 )                                        period;
                            97/C 9/31
                                                                           ( b ) the reference quantities claimed by category A
                                                                                operators are systematically and materially higher
                  (Language of the case: English)                                than the category A licences actually granted by
                                                                                the Community;
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                           (c ) as a result of inconsistencies in the figures
Instance of the European Communities on 23 October                               themselves and of simple arithmetical and
1996 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
                                                                                reporting errors, the Commission is using different
& Co., represented by Bernard O'Connor, assisted by
                                                                                figures to calculate reference quantities for 1995 ,
Bonifacio Garcia Porras, with an address for service in
                                                                                19 96 and provisionally 1997;
Luxemburg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22
rue Marie Adelaide .
                                                                           ( d ) as a result of the Commission's poor
The applicants claim that the Court should :                                     administration, there has been double counting of
                                                                                quantities;
— pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
     declare Regulation ( EC ) No 1561/96 of 30 July                       ( e ) finally, the Commission has failed in its legal
     1996 f 1 ) void in so far as it affects the applicants or,                  obligation to operate a fair and transparent system
     alternatively, declare it void erga omnes,                                  for the allocation of banana licences; by
                                                                                establishing a system immune from any publicly
                                                                                verifiable control , the Commission was bound to
— pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, declare                              be faced with the problem of double counting or
     Regulation ( EC ) No 1442/93 inapplicable in so far as                      inaccurate reference quantities .
     it constitutes the legal basis of Regulation ( EC )
     No 1561/96 and affects the applicants,
                                                                      (B) Pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, the
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and                        applicants plead the illegality of Regulation ( EEC )
     the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,                 No 1442/93 , which is the legal basis of Regulation
     to make good any damage caused to the applicants by                   ( EC ) No 1561 /96 . They maintain that the Commission
     the wrongful adoption of Regulation ( EC ) No 1561/                   relied on provisions of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1442/93
     96 ,                                                                  which        infringe   the    principles   of fairness,
                                                                           reasonableness and good administration .
— make any additional orders which the Court considers
     necessary for the purposes of determining the damage             ( C) The applicants claim that the Commission infringed an
     caused to the applicants;                                             essential procedural requirement laid down in
                                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 by failing to draw up a
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                             forecast supply balance before the beginning of the
     proceedings.                                                          1996 marketing year. They agree that Regulation
                                                                           ( EEC ) No 404/93 does not expressly state that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        forecast supply balance is to be drawn up before the
                                                                           commencement of the marketing year in question, but
The         application    concerns      the      Commission's             consider that this is an implied requirement since the
administration, for the marketing year 1996, of the                        correct calculation of the quota and ultimately of the
allocation of licences for the import of third-country and                 reduction coefficient depend on production of a
non-traditional ACP bananas into the Community under                       forecast supply balance before the start of the relevant
the tariff quota established by Article 18 ( 1 ) of Council                marketing year.
Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 . The
applicants, both of whom import bananas into the                      With regard to the claim for damages, the applicants
Community, challenge the decision of the Commission to                submit that, for the reasons already stated, the
reduce the quantity of licences allocated to them for the             Commission has infringed a superior rule of law for the
year 1996 through the application of a definitive                     protection of the individual by determining the reduction
reduction coefficient based on the reference quantities set           coefficients for 1996 . The infringement is sufficiently
out in Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1561 /96 of 30 July            serious to found an action in damages, in so far as the
1996 .
                                                                      Commission has acted in a manner verging on the
                                                                      arbitrary. As a result of the infringement, they suffered a
The applicants submit that Regulation ( EC ) No 1561 /96              loss that goes beyond the bounds of the economic risks
must be annulled for the following reasons:                           inherent in their business; that loss arises, on the one
                                                                      hand, from the fact that the share of the category A quota
(A) The Commission determined the reference quantity on               allocated is less than it would have been if the
     the basis of information which it knew was incorrect :           Commission had calculated the reduction coefficient on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 9/ 18            1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11 . 1 . 97
the basis of correct figures and, on the other hand, from               Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
the fact that the Commission is using different figures to              Brognieri against the Commission of the European
calculate reference quantities for 1995 and 1996 .                                                 Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 74/96 )
(!) OJ No L 193 , 3 . 8 . 1996 , p . 15 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/33 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 28 October 1996 by Yannick
Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                 Union                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 20 September
                          ( Case T-l 72/96 )
                                                                        1996 by Ernesto Brognieri , residing at Barasso ( Italy ),
                             ( 97/C 9/32 )                              represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of
                (Language of the case: French)                          Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 28 October 1996 by Yannick Chevalier
Delanoue, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                      — annul the decision of 30 November 1995 concerning
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at                    the award of shiftwork allowance, in compliance with
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange .                                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             on 8 June 1995 in case T-583/93 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Council of 29 January 1996                  — order all sums due thereunder to be paid to the
    not to increase his annual leave by additional                           applicant in whole, both principal and default interest,
    travelling time,                                                         the amount of the principal being assessed, without
                                                                             prejudice, in particular to increases during the course
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     of the proceedings, at the sum of Lit 24 997 792, with
                                                                             interest to be assessed at the rate of 8 % per annum,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official at the Council whose place of                — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
origin was fixed as Washington, states that he is
challenging the decision whereby the appointing authority
refuses to add to the duration of the annual leave to                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which he is entitled travelling time calculated by taking
into account the needs and, in particular, the actual                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-583/93 ,
duration and conditions of the journey as well as the                   settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 , and in Case T-148/96,
period of adjustment/recovery resulting from the time                   still pending, challenges the decision of the appointing
difference .
                                                                        authority of 30 November 1995 awarding him the
                                                                        shiftwork allowance            from   1   March   1993     until
He considers that the travelling time of two days granted               31 December 1993 .
to him in reliance on the rules generally applied to
officials whose place of origin is outwith Europe covers
only the duration of the journey, but takes no account of               He complains in particular that the decision ignores the
the time to recover from the fatigue to which such a                    fact that the decision regularizing his position was not
journey gives rise. In the view of the applicant, this means            taken until 28 November 1995 and that the operative part
that the appointing authority treats officials whose place              of the said judgment of 8 June 1995 required the payment
of origin is situated outwith Europe differently from those             of sums intended to cover the period between 1 March
whose place of origin is situated within Europe and who                 1993 and the date on which the decision regularizing his
are entitled, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex V to                position was adopted . That date cannot refer to the date
the Staff Regulations, to an increase of their holiday in               of a decision nearly two years before the judgment.
order to take account of the strain of the journey
notwithstanding the fact that they are not faced with the
problem of recovering from the effects of jet-lag. He                   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement
concludes that the contested decision was adopted in                    of Articles 26 and 56a of the Staff Regulations, and
breach of the principle of equal treatment and non                     Articles 176 and 179 of the Treaty of Rome, and
discrimination as well as of Article 7 ( 5 ) of Annex V to              infringement of the principle of res judicata.
the Staff Regulations .


title: Case T-152/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Commission v Kakol (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Open competition — Non-admission of a candidate — Non-recognition of a diploma — Admission to a previous competition — Conditions of similar competitions — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Commission v Kakol
   (Case T-152/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Open competition - Non-admission of a candidate - Non-recognition of a diploma - Admission to a previous competition - Conditions of similar competitions - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 392/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Simonetti, J. Currall and G. Gattinara, then F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2015, Kakol v Commission (F-1/14 and F-48/14, EU:F:2015:5), asking for annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2015, Kakol v Commission (F-1/14 and F-48/14, EU:F:2015:5),

               2)

               Refers the case to a Chamber of the Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case C-176/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 6 April 2017 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., established in Bielsko-Biała v Mariusz Wawrzosek

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 6 April 2017 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., established in Bielsko-Biała v Mariusz Wawrzosek
   (Case C-176/17)
   (2017/C 300/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A., established in Bielsko-Biała

      Defendant: Mariusz Wawrzosek

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, and the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) in particular Article 17(1) and Article 22(1) thereof, be construed as precluding the assertion of a claim, established by means of a duly completed bill of exchange, by a seller or supplier (the creditor) against a consumer (the debtor) in the course of an order for payment procedure pursuant to Article 485(2) et seq. of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego), in conjunction with Article 41 of the Law on consumer credit (Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim) of 12 May 2011, under which the national court may examine the effectiveness of the claim arising from the bill of exchange exclusively from the point of view of compliance with the formal requirements applicable to the bill of exchange, without examining the relationship underlying it?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case C-280/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Regional policy — Regional operational programme (ROP) Puglia (Italy) covered by objective No 1 (2000-2006) — Reduction of the Community financial assistance initially granted by the European Regional Development Fund)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 — Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-280/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regional policy - Regional operational programme (ROP) Puglia (Italy) covered by objective No 1 (2000-2006) - Reduction of the Community financial assistance initially granted by the European Regional Development Fund))
   (2016/C 038/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-451/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Natthaya Dülger v Wetteraukreis (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Association Council Decision No 1/80 — Article 7, first paragraph — Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Thai national who was married to a Turkish worker and lived with him for more than three years)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Natthaya Dülger v Wetteraukreis
   (Case C-451/11) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Association Council Decision No 1/80 - Article 7, first paragraph - Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Thai national who was married to a Turkish worker and lived with him for more than three years)
   2012/C 295/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Natthaya Dülger

      Defendant: Wetteraukreis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Interpretation of the first indent of the first paragraph of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence of members of a family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Thai national who cohabited with her Turkish husband for more than three years and until her divorce

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a member of the family of a Turkish worker, who is a national of a third country other than Turkey, may invoke, in the host Member State, the rights arising from that provision, where all the other conditions laid down by the provision have been fulfilled.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2000 in Case C-34/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)

text:
29.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 122/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2. An undertaking engaged in providing temporary personnel
                                                                                normally carries on its activities in the Member State in which it
                                                                                is established if it habitually carries on significant activities in
                         of 10 February 2000                                     that State.
                                                                            3. Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council
in Case C-202/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Fitzwil-                             Regulation No 1408/71, in the version codified by Regulation
liam Executive Search Ltd, trading under the name of                             No 2001/83 and as updated at the time of the events in
‘Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS)’ v Bestuur van het                         question, is to be interpreted as meaning that a certificate issued
         Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (1)                           by the institution designated by the competent authority of a
                                                                                Member State is binding on the social security institutions of
(Social security for migrant workers — Determination of                          other Member States in so far as it certifies that workers posted
the legislation applicable — Temporary workers posted to                         by an undertaking providing temporary personnel are covered by
                        another Member State)                                    the social security system of the Member State in which that
                                                                                undertaking is established. However, where the institutions of
                                                                                other Member States raise doubts as to the correctness of the
                            (2000/C 122/04)                                      facts on which the certificate is based or as to the legal assessment
                                                                                of those facts and, consequently, as to the conformity of
                                                                                the information contained in the certificate with Regulation
                                                                                No 1408/71 and in particular with Article 14(1)(a) thereof,
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                              the issuing institution must re-examine the grounds on which
                                                                                the certificate was issued and, where appropriate, withdraw it.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-202/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Amsterdam, (Netherlands) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fitzwilliam Executive Search Ltd, trading under the name of                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
‘Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS)’ and Bestuur van het
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen — on the interpret-                                        of 15 February 2000
ation of Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                            in Case C-34/98: Commission of the European Communi-
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community and of Article 11(1) (a) of Regulation (EEC)
No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the                      (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)
procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, in the
versions codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                                             (2000/C 122/05)
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) and as updated at the
time of the events in question — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                                    (Language of the case: French)
L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                                 in the European Court Reports)
on 10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            In Case C-34/98: Commission of the European Communities
1. Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                   (Agents: P Hillenkamp and H. Michard) v French Republic
     Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security          (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance) — application
     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to           for a declaration that, by applying the social debt repayment
     members of their families moving within the Community, in the          contribution to the employment income and substitute income
     version codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of             of employed and self-employed persons resident in France but
     2 June 1983, and as updated at the time of the events in               working in another Member State who, by virtue of Council
     question, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit    Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
     from the advantage afforded by that provision, an undertaking          cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to
     engaged in providing temporary personnel which, from one               self-employed persons and to members of their families
     Member State, makes workers available on a temporary basis to          moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
     undertakings based in another Member State must normally               Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
     carry on its activities in the first State.                            1997 L 28, p. 1), are not subject to French social security
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.4.2000
legislation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-            who, by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
gations under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after              14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) and Article 13 of the                 employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
said regulation — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                  of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), are not subject to
bers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Rag-           French social security legislation, the French Republic has
nemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 and 52 of the
General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                   EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)
judgment on 15 February 2000, in which it:                                 and Article 13 of the said regulation — the Court, composed
                                                                           of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
1. Declares that, by applying the social debt repayment contribution       (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presi-
    to the employment income and substitute income of employed             dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
    and self-employed persons resident in France but working in            P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    another Member State who, by virtue of Council Regulation              Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given
    (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                 a judgment on 15 February 2000, in which it:
    social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
    persons and to members of their families moving within the             1. Declares that, by applying the general social contribution to the
    Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                     employment income and substitute income of employed and
    (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are not subject to French                self-employed persons resident in France but who, by virtue of
    social security legislation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil       Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    its obligations under Article 13 of that regulation and under               the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
    Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
    Articles 39 EC and 43 EC);                                                  within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are not
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 subject to French social security legislation, the French Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that
                                                                                regulation and under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now,
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC);
                                                                           2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 15 February 2000
in Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                      ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
   (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                           (2000/C 122/06)
                                                                           in Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
                                                                                unfounded appeal)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/07)
In Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P. Hillenkamp and H. Michard) v French Republic
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance) — application
for a declaration that, by applying the general social contri-
bution to the employment income and substitute income of                   In Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA, established at Le Passage
employed and self-employed persons resident in France but                  (France), Jean-Marie Bissières, residing at La Croix Blanche


title: Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P: Judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) v Council of the European Union (Appeals — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities — Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Force majeure — Armed conflict)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/7

         Judgments of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 April 2013 — Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Force majeure - Armed conflict)
   2013/C 171/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), Affi Pascal N’Guessan (C-482/11 P) (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. M. Joséphidès, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeals against the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2011 in Cases T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council, T-349/11 Koné v Council, T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council, T-351/11 Djédjé v Council and T-352/11 N’Guessan v Council by which it dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellants’ actions for the annulment of, first, Council Decisions 2011/17/CFSP of 11 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 31), 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and, secondly, Council Regulations (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — No individual notification of the decision — Case of force majeure

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Mr Laurent Gbagbo, Mr Katinan Justin Koné, Ms Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie, Mr Alcide Djédjé and Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case C-1/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 2 January 2014 — KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV v Ministerraad Intervener: Belgacom NV

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 2 January 2014 — KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV v Ministerraad Intervener: Belgacom NV
   (Case C-1/14)
   2014/C 102/16
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Intervener: Belgacom NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), and in particular Articles 9 and 32 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the social tariff for universal service as well as the compensation mechanism provided for in Article 13(1)(b) of the Universal Service Directive are not only applicable to electronic communications by means of a telephone connection at a fixed location to a public communications network but also to electronic communications by means of mobile communication services and/or internet subscriptions?

               2.

               Should Article 9(3) of the Universal Service Directive be interpreted as allowing Member States to add special tariff options to the universal service for services other than those defined in Article 9(2) of the universal service?

               3.

               If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, are the relevant provisions of the Universal Service Directive compatible with the principle of equality, as set out inter alia in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-465/99 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 1999 by PARTEX, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, against the judgment delivered on 16 September 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-182/96 between PARTEX, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/21
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         the Commission. That period expired on 16 March 1998
                                                                        without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                        Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         into national law.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex          (1) OJ L 243 of 24.9.1996, p. 31.
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That period expired on 21 May 1998
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
into national law.                                                      Appeal brought on 3 December 1999 by PARTEX, Com-
                                                                        panhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, against the judgment
                                                                        delivered on 16 September 1999 by the Third Chamber
(1) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.
                                                                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties in Case T-182/96 (1) between PARTEX, Companhia
                                                                        Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-465/99 P)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                                          (2000/C 47/35)
                                lic
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
                         (Case C-464/99)                                1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-182/96 between PARTEX,
                          (2000/C 47/34)                                Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities was brought before the Court of
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the          Justice of the European Communities on 3 December 1999 by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December              PARTEX, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, represented
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     by Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and Miguel
represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,          Pena Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
secondment to that service, with an address for service in              Rheinsheim, L-2419 Luxembourg.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            1. set aside the contested judgment on the ground of error in
                                                                            law in that the legislation applicable to the European Social
— declare that, by not adopting and, as a subsidiary claim,                 Fund (ESF) was incorrectly applied and/or on the ground
    by not communicating to the Commission, within the                      that the decision regarding the existence of abuse of rights
    time-limit laid down the laws, regulations and administrat-             and breach of the rights of the defence, of the principles of
    ive provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                   good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations and
    Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the                      of acquired rights was wrong as was the decision regarding
    disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated               misuse of powers, inasmuch as they are based on matters
    terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic Republic has failed to               of fact which are materially wrong or inaccurate, reserving,
    fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that directive;             however, that part of the judgment in which it upheld in
                                                                            part the action brought by PARTEX in Case T-182/96;
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        2. accordingly, annul Commission Decision C(96) 1184 of
                                                                            14 August 1996, which was the subject-matter of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             action in Case T-182/9, on the ground that the Com-
                                                                            mission infringed the legislation applicable to the ESF;
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex          3. in the event that it should dismiss the claims set out above,
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)              set aside the contested judgment, reserving, however, that
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into                   part of the judgment in which it upheld in part the action
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that             brought by PARTEX in Case T-182/96, on the ground that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to                    it adjudicates on only part of the substance of the case;
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
4. in the event that it should dismiss the claims set out above,       — The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance failed
    set aside the contested judgment to the extent that it                 to take a decision on the second supplementary ground of
    upholds the decision adopted by the Commission in File                 annulment of the Commission decision contested in
    880412 P3, considering ineligible the entire amount                    Case T-182/96 alleging infringement of the legislation
    requested under sub-headings 14.1.4, 14.2.6, 14.2.7,                   applicable to the ESF (no margin of discretion), put forward
    14.3.1(b) and (c), 14.3.3 and 14.3.5 relating to the ‘Pirites          by the appellant in its reply in that case.
    Alentejanas’ project, sub-headings 14.3.11, 14.3.8 and
    14.9 relating to ‘Tintas Robbialac’ project and sub-heading        — The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance
    14.3.9 relating to the Sapec project, in respect of which              misapplied Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
    annulment is sought on the following grounds:                          EC) in respect of sub-headings 14.1.4, 14.2.6, 14.2.7,
                                                                           14.3.1(b) and (c), 14.3.3 and 14.3.5 relating to the ‘Pirites
    — the material inaccuracy of the findings of fact made by              Alentejanas’ project, sub-headings 14.3.11, 14.3.8 and
         the Court of First Instance;                                      14.9 relating to ‘Tintas Robbialac’ project and sub-heading
                                                                           14.3.9 relating to the Sapec project, inasmuch as it based
                                                                           itself on matters of fact which are materially wrong or
    — error in law arising out of inconsistent reasoning;                  inaccurate.
5. accordingly, on those grounds, annul Commission                     — The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance
    Decision C(96) 1184 of 14 August 1996 in so far as it                  committed an error with regard to the existence of abuse
    considers ineligible as a whole, the amounts requested                 of rights and breach of the rights of the defence, of the
    under sub-headings 14.1.4, 14.2.6, 14.2.7, 14.3.1(b) and               principles of good faith, of the protection of legitimate
    (c), 14.3.3 and 14.3.5 relating to the ‘Pirites Alentejanas’           expectations and of acquired rights, inasmuch as it based
    project, sub-headings 14.3.11, 14.3.8 and 14.9 relating to             itself on matters of fact which are materially wrong or
    ‘Tintas Robbialac’ project and sub-heading 14.3.9 relating             inaccurate.
    to the Sapec project;
                                                                       — The appellant submits that the incorrect findings of fact
                                                                           made by the Court of First Instance led it to commit an
6. set aside the third paragraph of the operative part of the
                                                                           error in law in the present case by declaring unfounded
    contested judgment inasmuch as it orders PARTEX to bear
                                                                           the claim as to misuse of powers in the decision contested
    its own costs in Case T-182/96;
                                                                           in Case T-182/96.
7. order the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                       (1) OJ 1997 C 26, p. 9.
8. uphold as well founded the application for legal aid and,
    accordingly, grant the appellant legal aid in the present
    case.
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission
— The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance                of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
    committed an error in law by infringing the legislation                                            lic
    applicable to the ESF by finding that in a case such as the
    present case, where a Member State has already certified
    the accuracy of the facts and accounts of the final claim                                  (Case C-467/99)
    for payment, that State may yet alter its assessment of the
    claim in question where it finds irregularities which had
    not become apparent before.                                                                 (2000/C 47/36)
— The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
    committed an error in law by declaring inadmissible the            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
    supplementary ground put forward by PARTEX in its reply            1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    in Case T-182/96, claiming breach of the rules on the              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    sharing of competences between Member States and the               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
    Commission.                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Kirchberg.
— The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance
    committed an error in law contrary to the legislation              The Commission claims that the Court should:
    applicable to the ESF by finding that the rules on the
    sharing of competences between Member States and the               — declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
    Commission had not been infringed.                                     administrative provisions necessary to transpose fully


title: Case T-97/00: Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia Vakalopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 163/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia Vakalo-                     Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper
poulou against the Commission of the European Com-                                       against the European Parliament
                              munities
                                                                                (Case T-99/00)
                           (Case T-97/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/68)
                          (2000/C 163/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          on 20 April 2000 by Ignacio Samper, residing in Madrid,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
European Communities on 20 April 2000 by Anastassia
Vakalopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul the appointing authority’s decision of 9 June 1999,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   inasmuch as it provides that the date from which the
                                                                              applicant’s promotion to grade A 4 is to take effect is to
— annul the Commission’s decision not to extend the appli-                    be 1 January 1998 and not 1 January 1997;
    cant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff beyond
    30 September 1999;                                                    — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs in any
                                                                              event.
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the remuner-
    ation which she should have received since 1 October
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    1999, subject to deduction there from of any allowances
    and remuneration received;
                                                                          In consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
                                                                          18 March 1999 in Case C-304/97 P, which annulled the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          applicant’s appointment to the post of head of division in the
                                                                          Parliament’s Information Office in Madrid, he was reclassified
                                                                          in grade A 5 with effect from 1 April 1995. By the contested
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           decision, the appointing authority promoted him to grade A 4
                                                                          with effect from 1 January 1998. Consequently, the applicant’s
                                                                          application for the post of head of the Information Office in
The applicant states that the Commission had decided, in                  Madrid could not be accepted, since he did not possess the
consequence of an agreement concluded with regard to                      two years’ seniority in the requisite grade as at 7 May 1999,
contractual staff in the context of the harmonisation of                  that date being the deadline for the submission of applications
technical arrangements, to grant contracts to certain members             for the post in question.
of the temporary staff on condition that those persons had
submitted applications to participate in an open competition              The applicant disputes the date from which the contested
or fulfilled the criteria for admission to a future competition.          decision is to take effect. On a correct application of Article
                                                                          45 of the Staff Regulations, and of the general provisions for
                                                                          giving effect thereto, as provided for by Article 110 of the Staff
In the applicant’s view, she fulfilled the conditions prescribed          Regulations, he should have been appointed to grade A 4 by
by the agreement and was thus entitled to an extension of her             1 January 1997 at the latest.
contract. The contested decision was thus adopted in breach
of the principle of equality of treatment between members of
the temporary staff.                                                      In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, that
                                                                          the defendant has infringed the third and fourth paragraphs of
                                                                          Article 24 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and that it
Moreover, the Commission has infringed Article 25 of the                  has disregarded several general principles of law, including
Staff Regulations and the principle of the right to a fair hearing,       inter alia the principle of equal treatment as between officials.
in that it has provided no explanation enabling the applicant             He observes that the appointing authority erred in its revision
to understand the reasons for which her contract was not                  of his career and that it failed to take adequate account of the
extended.                                                                 mobility shown by him as head of division in an external
                                                                          office.