title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 1997 in Case C-83/97: Commission of the European Community v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 92/43/EEC)

text:
C 55/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
EEC, must be interpreted as not precluding a tax such as                  raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive
the regional charge on vehicle registration certificates.                 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the field of
                                                                          application of the reduced rate of capital duty
                                                                          provided for in respect of certain company
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                                                                          reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the
                                                                          Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                          capital, by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April
                                                                          1973 fixing common rates of capital duty, by Council
                                                                          Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending
                                                                          Article 5(2) of Directive 69/335/EEC, and by Council
                                                                          Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Directive 69/335/EEC, does not apply to a national
                                                                          tax on any appreciation in the value of immovable
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          property, determined at the time when such property
                    of 11 December 1997                                   was contributed to a capital company. However,
                                                                          Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, does apply to the
in Case C-42/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  registration charge, the mortgage registration fee and
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia): SocietaÁ                       the Land Register fee.
Immobiliare SIF SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                         dello Stato (1)
                                                                     2. On a proper construction, Article 12 of Directive 69/
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Contribution of immovable                         335/EEC, as amended, authorises Member States,
                           property)                                      notwithstanding the prohibition laid down in
                         (98/C 55/09)                                     Article 10 thereof, to charge, in connection with an
                                                                          increase in the capital of a capital company brought
                                                                          about by the contribution of immovable property,
                                                                          taxes such as the registration charge, the mortgage
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          registration fee and the Land Register fee, provided
                                                                          that such taxes do not exceed those applicable to like
                                                                          transactions in the Member State charging them.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
In Case C-42/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale (Civil
and Criminal District Court), Venice (Italy), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between SocietaÁ Immobiliare SIF SpA and                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato Ð on the                                          (Fifth Chamber)
interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital                                 of 11 December 1997
(OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as                  in    Case C-83/97: Commission of the European
amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973                      Community v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
varying the field of application of the reduced rate of
capital duty provided for in respect of certain company              (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the                                      Directive 92/43/EEC)
Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                                (98/C 55/10)
capital (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13), by Council Directive
73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates of capital
duty (OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15), by Council Directive                              (Language of the case: German)
74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5(2)
of Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ L 303, 3.11.1974, p. 9), and
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
amending Directive 69/335/EEC (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985,
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F.
Mancini and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-                  In Case C-83/97: Commission of the European
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has           Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Federal
given a judgment on 11 December 1997, in which it has                Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
ruled:                                                               Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                     adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
1. On a proper construction, Council Directive 69/335/               Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
     EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/7
flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7), the Federal Republic of           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
Treaty, Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: C.                  D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges;
Gulmann (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, M.                    N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and            given a judgment on 11 December 1997, in which it:
L. Sevón, Judges; Advocate-General: N. Fennelly,
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 11 December             1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                          prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with
1. By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                          Ð Commission Directive 93/72/EEC of 1 September
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                              1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/
                                                                              time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
     EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                              approximation of the laws, regulations and
     habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Federal
                                                                              administrative      provisions   relating    to    the
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              classification, packaging and labelling of
     under Article 23 of that Directive.
                                                                              dangerous substances, and
2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay                      Ð Commission Directive 93/101/EC of 11 November
     the costs.                                                               1993 adapting Directive 67/548/EEC to technical
                                                                              progress for the 20th time,
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                          the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 2(1) of those Directives;
                                                                     2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 11 December 1997
in    Case   C-190/97: Commission of the European
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
           Directives 93/72/EEC and 93/101/EC)                                             of 16 December 1997
                          (98/C 55/11)                               in    Case   C-316/96: Commission of the             European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Directives 93/53/EEC, 93/54/EEC, 93/113/EC and
                                                                     93/114/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the prescribed
                                                                                periods)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                              (98/C 55/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-190/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of
Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,                            published in the European Court Reports)
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 93/72/EEC of                        In Case C-316/96: Commission of the European
1 September 1993 adopting to technical progress for the              Communities (Agent: Paolo Ziotti) v. Italian Republic
19th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the                        (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Oscar
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            Fiumara) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing
provisions relating to the classification, packaging and             to bring into force within the prescribed periods the laws,
labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 258, 16.10.1993,             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
p. 29), and Commission Directive 93/101/EC of                        comply with Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June
11 November 1993 adapting Directive 67/548/EEC to                    1993 introducing minimum Community measures for the
technical progress for the 20th time (OJ L 13, 15.1.1994,            control of certain fish diseases (OJ L 175, 19.7.1993,
p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its               p. 23), Council Directive 93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993
obligations under those Directives Ð the Court (Fifth                amending Directive 91/67/EEC concerning the animal


title: Case T-751/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v ECB

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/42

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v ECB
   (Case T-751/16)
   (2017/C 006/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Grégoire, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/92) concerning the application made by Crédit Mutuel for authorisation to exclude exposure to the public sector from the leverage ratio calculation, in accordance with Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, as regards Crédit Mutuel and all the entities of the group subject to the leverage ratio;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is ultra vires. According to the applicant, the European Central Bank (ECB) is competent only to verify compliance with the conditions governing whether an establishment may be granted a derogation from the leverage ratio calculation rules in order to ensure the practical application of those conditions, without bolstering them or assessing their relevance, and is competent only to apply those conditions as they have been definitively and precisely laid down by the Commission, on the basis of its exclusive powers, by means of a delegated regulation designed to take into account the specific nature of the banking and financial industry in the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, which is presented in the alternative to the preceding plea, alleging that the ECB committed an error of law in the contested decision. According to the applicant, exposure to public sector entities, when treated in the same way as exposure at central government level, should be regarded as representing zero risk where they are denominated in the domestic currency of that government.

               3.

               Third plea in law, which is presented in the alternative to the two preceding pleas, alleging manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objectives pursued by prudential requirements, having regard to the characteristics of regulated savings, and is manifestly disproportionate due to the negative consequences that will result for the establishment in question.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the principle of sound administration in so far as the ECB failed to examine or take into account all the relevant factors in the present case.


title: Case C-506/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative, Luxembourg) — Graham J. Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (Freedom of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained — Conditions for registration with the competent authority in the host Member State — Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host Member State — Remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with domestic law)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative, Luxembourg) — Graham J. Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
   (Case C-506/04) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Directive 98/5/EC - Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained - Conditions for registration with the competent authority in the host Member State - Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host Member State - Remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with domestic law)
   (2006/C 281/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour administrative
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Graham J. Wilson

      Defendant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Obligation to provide for a remedy before a court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of domestic law against a decision refusing entry on the Bar register as a lawyer practising under his home-country professional title — Appeal to the Conseil disciplinaire et adminsitratif du barreau — National legislation making registration conditional on an oral examination intended to verify knowledge of the official languages of the host Member State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 9 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an appeal procedure in which the decision refusing registration, referred to in Article 3 of that directive, must be challenged at first instance before a body composed exclusively of lawyers practising under the professional title of the host Member State and on appeal before a body composed for the most part of such lawyers, where the appeal before the supreme court of that Member State permits judicial review of the law only and not the facts.

               2)

               Article 3 of Directive 98/5 must be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a lawyer with the competent authority of a Member State other than the State where he obtained his qualification in order to practise there under his home-country professional title cannot be made subject to a prior examination of his proficiency in the languages of the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by Mario Costacurta against the judgment delivered on 22 January 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-98/96 between Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-75/98 P)

text:
30.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 166/5
Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by Mario Costacurta                    for Official Publications are, in budgetary terms, part
against the judgment delivered on 22 January 1998 by the               of the Commission's total staff', since that has not
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    been the case since 1970;
European Communities in Case T-98/96 between Mario
     Costacurta and the Commission of the European
                         Communities                               Ð Infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
                      (Case C-75/98 P)
                        (98/C 166/07)                              Ð Contravention of the principle of the protection of
                                                                       legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard for
                                                                       the welfare of officials;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 January
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-98/96 between                Ð Infringement of Articles 25 and 101a of the Staff
Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European                    Regulations.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 20 March 1998 by Mario                 (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 20.
Costacurta, represented by Albert Rodesch, Avocat-avoueÂ,          (2) OJ L 13 of 18.1.1969, p. 19.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at 7Ð11
Route d'Esch.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the judgment delivered on 22 January 1998 by               Appeal brought on 20 March 1998 by Ajinomoto Co. Inc.
    the Court of First Instance in Case T-98/96 Costacurta         against the judgment delivered on 18 December 1997 by
    v Commission (1);                                              the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in joined
                                                                   Cases T-159/94 (1) between Ajinomoto Co. Inc. and the
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of 31 May
    1996 reassigning the appellant to the Office for               Council of the European Union, supported by the
    Official Publications of the European Communities;             Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/
                                                                   94 (2) between The NutraSweet Company and the Council
                                                                   of the European Union, supported by the Commission of
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings                              the European Communities
    before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First
                                                                                (Case C-76/98 P)
    Instance;
                                                                                (98/C 166/08)
Ð reserve to the appellant all other rights and
    entitlements, including the right to put forward pleas
    in law or bring proceedings, particularly regarding            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 December
    compensation for damage.                                       1997 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
                                                                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                   in joined Cases T-159/94 between Ajinomoto Co. Inc. and
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                   the Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, and T-160/94
Ð Lack of competence on the part of the appointing                 between The NutraSweet Company and the Council of the
    authority, infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of the Staff       European Union, supported by the Commission of the
    Regulations and of Article 5(4) of Decision 69/13/             European Communities, was brought before the Court of
    Euratom/EEC setting up the Office for Official                 Justice of the European Communities on 20 March 1998
    Publications of the European Communities (2): the              by Ajinomoto Co. Inc., of 15-1, Kyobashi itchome, Chuo-
    Court of First Instance erred in dismissing as irrelevant      ku, Tokyo 104, Japan, represented by Mario Siragusa, of
    the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 4 of          the Rome Bar, Till Müller-Ibold, of the Frankfurt Bar, and
    the Staff Regulations. Since the appointing authoritiy         Victoria Donaldson, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of
    which adopted the contested decision was in no way a           England and Wales, instructed by Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
    budgetary authority and since it was not empowered             & Hamilton, Brussels, with an address for service in
    to amend the lists of authorised posts, it could not           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11, Rue
    assign the appellant to the Official Publications Office       Goethe.
    together with his post;
                                                                   The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations,
    infringement of the Council regulation on the budget
    of the European Communities: the Court of First                Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
    Instance was wrong to state in paragraph 34 of the                 joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94 and annul
    judgment under appeal that, as a matter of law, as the            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 (3) of 27 May
    Commission has pointed out, the posts with the Office              1991 in so far as it applies to the Appellant;


title: Case C-456/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof lodged on 16 November 2006 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina S.p.A.

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/43

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof lodged on 16 November 2006 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina S.p.A.
   (Case C-456/06)
   (2006/C 326/87)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG

      Respondent: Cassina S.p.A.
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Can it be assumed that there is a distribution to the public in any manner other than by sale, within the terms of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) (‘the Information Society Directive’), in the case where it is made possible for third parties to make use of items of copyright-protected works without the grant of user involving a transfer of de facto power to dispose of those items?

                           (b)

                           Is there a distribution under Article 4(1) of the Information Society Directive also in the case in which items of copyright-protected works are shown publicly without the possibility of using those items being granted to third parties?

               2.

               If the answers are in the affirmative: can the protection accorded to the free movement of goods preclude, in the abovementioned cases, exercise of the distribution right if the items presented are not under copyright protection in the Member State in which they were manufactured and placed on the market?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case C-55/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 9 February 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Baxi Group Limited

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 9 February 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Baxi Group Limited
   (Case C-55/09)
   2009/C 90/21
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   House of Lords

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Baxi Group Limited

      Questions referred

   ‘In circumstances where

               A.

               a taxable person runs a business promotion scheme operated by an advertising and marketing company under which ‘points’ are issued to the taxable person's customers in connection with the purchase of goods by the customers from the taxable person;

               B.

               customers redeem the points by obtaining reward goods from the advertising and marketing company without payment;

               C.

               the taxable person has agreed with that other company to pay it the recommended retail price of the reward goods

                           1.

                           How are Articles 14, 24 and 73 and 168 of the VAT Directive (1) (formerly Articles 5, 6 and 11(A)(1)(a) and 17(2) of the Sixth Directive (2)) to be interpreted as regards the payments by the taxable person to the other company?

                           2.

                           In particular, are those provisions to be interpreted such that the payments by the taxable person to the other company are to be characterised:

                                       (a)

                                       solely as consideration for a supply of services by the other company to the taxable person;

                                       (b)

                                       solely as third party consideration for the supply of goods by the other company to the customers;

                                       (c)

                                       as consideration in part for the supply of services by the other company to the taxable person and in part for the supply of goods by the other company to the customers; or

                                       (d)

                                       as consideration for supplies both of advertising and marketing services and of reward goods by the other company to the taxable person?

                           3.

                           If the answer to question 2 is that such payments are to be characterised in part as consideration for a supply of services by the other company to the taxable person and in part as third party consideration from the taxable person to the other company in respect of the other company's supply of goods to the customers, what are the criteria laid down by Community law to determine how the payment is to be apportioned between those two supplies?

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

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, p. 1’


title: Case C-543/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2013 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v E. Fischer-Lintjens
   (Case C-543/13)
   2014/C 15/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

      Respondent: E. Fischer-Lintjens

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘payable’, as used in Article 27 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the decisive factor for the purpose of determining the point in time from which a pension is payable is the date of the decision to make an award, after which the pension is paid, or the commencement date of the pension awarded with retroactive effect?

               2.

               If the term ‘payable’ refers to the commencement date of the pension awarded with retroactive effect:
               Can this be reconciled with the fact that the person entitled to receive the pension who comes under Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 cannot, under Netherlands legislation, take out medical care insurance with the same retroactive effect?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).


title: Case F-47/07: Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/43

         Action brought on 21 May 2007 –Behmer v Parliament
   (Case F-47/07)
   (2007/C 170/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare unlawful the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament relating to the ‘Policy on promotion and on career planning’ of 6 July 2005 and the ‘Implementing measures relating to the award of merit points and to promotion’ of 25 July 2005;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade A*13 with effect from 1 January 2005 in the 2005 promotions procedure;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a grade AD12 official of the European Parliament who is currently Vice-President of the Trade Union of the European Public Service, Luxembourg (Union Syndicale Luxembourg), pleads in the first place the unlawfulness of the decisions referred to in the first indent above, which are in his opinion general provisions for giving effect to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘Staff Regulations’) for the purposes of Article 110 thereof.
   The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles governing reasonable career prospects, equality of treatment and the duty to give reasons, and he also pleads a manifest error of assessment. In particular, he asserts that the administration, after annulling, following his first complaint, the decision to award him 2 merit points, should have promoted him to grade AD13.
   Finally, the applicant contends that he was discriminated against because of his activities as a representative of the personnel, contrary to Article 1d and 24b of the Staff Regulations, to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II of the Staff Regulations and to Article 17 of the Agreement of 12 July 1990 between the European Parliament and the trade unions or staff associations of the personnel of the institution.


title: Case C-101/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2009 — Federal Republic of Germany v D, other parties: The Representative of the Federal Interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, The Federal Commissioner for Asylum Matters at the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2009 — Federal Republic of Germany v D, other parties: The Representative of the Federal Interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, The Federal Commissioner for Asylum Matters at the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge
   (Case C-101/09)
   2009/C 129/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Defendant: D

      Other parties: The Representative of the Federal Interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   The Federal Commissioner for Asylum Matters at the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it constitute a serious non-political crime or an act contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 if a foreign national was for many years involved as a combatant and an official — including for a time as a member of its governing body — in an organisation (in this case, the PKK) which repeatedly employed terrorist methods in its armed struggle against the state (in this case, Turkey) and is included in the list of persons, groups and entities annexed to the Council Common Position on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and the foreign national thereby actively supported its armed struggle in a prominent position?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: does exclusion from recognition as a refugee under Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2004/83/EC require that the foreign national continue to constitute a danger?

               3.

               If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: does exclusion from recognition as a refugee under Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2004/83/EC require that a proportionality test be undertaken in relation to the individual case?

               4.

               If Question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is it to be taken into account in considering proportionality that the foreign national enjoys protection against deportation under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 or under national rules?

                           (b)

                           Is exclusion disproportionate only in exceptional cases having particular characteristics?

               5.

               Is it compatible with the directive, for the purposes of Article 3 of Directive 2004/83/EC, if the foreign national continues to be recognised as having a right to asylum under national constitutional law even if one of the exclusion criteria laid down in Article 12(2) of the directive is satisfied and refugee status under Article 14(3) of the directive is revoked?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel, by judgment of that court of 12 December 1995, in the case of B. R. D. (Bureau RIK DECAN-Business Research & Development) NV v. Belgian State (Case C-401/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 46/9
The decision to reject Geotronics' tender on grounds of                answer is in the affirmative, is that rule justified on grounds
origin was undoubtedly taken after the entry into force of             of the general interest in maintaining industrial peace in the
the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement applies to all legal              sensitive area of the supply of tourist services, in respect of
situations which arise after its entry into force . Geotronics         which the Greek State, as a country for which tourism is
therefore contends that there is no retroactivity in the               important, has a reasonable and justifiable interest in
present case .                                                         intervening by regulation ?
The scope of the EEA Agreement
The Court of First Instance ruled that the EEA Agreement
cannot apply to the contract at issue since one of the parties
of the Contract, Romania , is not a party to the EEA                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret
Agreement. This is a formalistic conclusion which overlooks            by order of that court of 19 December 1995 in the case of
the economic reality of the situation. That reality is that            Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark,
there is in fact, as a result of the Commission's decision ,           acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk
discrimination between two EEA producers of equivalent                 Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked
products . The economic reality of the transaction and the                                                A/S
actions taken in relation thereto should be decisive .                                           ( Case C-400/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/15 )
It is submitted that the present situation falls within the
scope of the EEA Agreement. Geotronics further maintains
that the Commission has discriminated in a manner likely to            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
distort competition between products originating in the EC             European Communities by order of the Sø- og Handelsret
and EFTA states by giving an unfair competitive advantage              ( Maritime and Commercial Court) of 19 December 1995 ,
to the former . Such discrimination hinders the free                   which was received at the Court Registry on 21 December
movement of goods contrary to Articles 8 , 11 and 65 ( 1 ) of          1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Handels- og
the EEA Agreement.                                                     Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (Union of
                                                                       Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark ), acting on
                                                                       behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk Handel &
 (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 , p . 33 .                            Service ( Danish Commercial and Service-Industries
                                                                       Association ), acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S, on
                                                                       the following question:
                                                                       Does Article 5 ( 1 ), in conjunction with Article 2 ( 1 ), of
                                                                       Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
                                                                       implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis               and women as regards access to employment, vocational
 Epikratias tis Ellados ( Council of State, Greece ), by a             training and promotion, and working conditions ( x ), cover
 decision of that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of              dismissal as a result of absence following the end of
 Sindesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon                  maternity leave if the absence is attributable to an illness
              Grafion v. Minister of Employment                        which arose during pregnancy and continued during and
                         ( Case C-398/95 )
                                                                        after maternity leave, it being assumed that the dismissal
                                                                        took place after the end of the maternity leave ?
                            ( 96/C 46/14 )
                                                                        (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis
 Epikratias tis Ellados of 7 November 1995 , which was
 received at the Court Registry on 18 December 1995 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of Sindesmos ton en Elladi
 Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafion (Association of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
 Tourist and Travel Agencies in Greece ) v. Minister of                 Eerste Aanleg te Brussel, by judgment of that court of
 Employment, supported by the Somatio Diplomatoukhon                    12 December 1995 , in the case of B. R. D. (Bureau RIK
 Xenagon ( Association of Certified Tourist Guides ) and the            DECAN-Business Research & Development ) NV v. Belgian
 Panellinia Omospondia Xenagon ( Panhellenic Federation of                                                State
 Tourist Guides ) on the following question:
                                                                                Case C-401 /95 )
 Is the rule in Article 37 of Law No 1545/1985 which, in the                                         ( 96/C 46/ 16 )
 circumstances referred to therein, prescribes a mandatory
  legal form of a relationship of non-independent                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  employment between the parties — the legal form under                 European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
  which it is usual for the services of tourist guides to be            Eerste Aanleg te Brussel ( Court of First Instance, Brussels ),
  provided in the circumstances described in that Article —              by judgment of that court of 12 December 1995 , which was
  contrary to Articles 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty ? If the             received at the Court Registry on 21 December 1995 , for a
 ---pagebreak--- No C 46/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     17 . 2 . 96
preliminary ruling in the case of B. R. D. ( Bureau RIK                Action brought on 27 December 1995 by Italian Republic
DECAN-Business Research & Development ) NV v. Belgian                      against Commission of the European Communities
State on the following questions :                                                            ( Case C-406/95 )
1 . Must Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive                                             ( 96/C 46/ 18 )
    ( 77/388/EEC ) ( J ) be interpreted as permitting a Member
    State not to refund a VAT credit from a given tax period           An action against the Commission of the European
    and not to carry it forward to a following period, but to          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    retain it on the ground that, and for so long as , it has a        European Communities on 27 December 1 995 by the Italian
    claim against the taxpayer in question relating to a               Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza, acting
    previous tax period, if that claim is disputed by the              as Agent, assisted by Ivo M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato,
    taxpayer and thus does not yet constitute a definitive             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
    legal title, where the Member State has not received any           Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
    authorization under Article 27 of the Sixth VAT
    Directive ?                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must                 — annul the Commission 's decision of 4 October 1995
    Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive, in conjunction             concerning the conditions imposed on the second
    with the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as               operator of GSM radiotelephony services in Italy ('),
    permitting the Member State to provide that the
    necessity or urgency of the retention may not be                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    contested in any way, and that the retention may not be
    replaced in any way by a guarantee or annulled, so long            Pleas in law and main arguments
    as the disputed VAT claim has not been the
    subject-matter of a final judicial decision ?                      1 . In order to abolish the alleged disadvantage suffered by
                                                                           the second operator, Italy is obliged under the contested
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                    decision to require that 'Telecom Italia Mobile make an
                                                                           identical payment' or to adopt, after receiving the
                                                                           agreement of the Commission, 'corrective measures
                                                                           equivalent in economic terms to the payment made by
                                                                           the second operator'.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                  However, in the steps taken prior to the adoption of the
Munchen by decision of that court of 14 December 1995 in                   contested decision, the possibility of requiring that
the case of Bioforce GmbH v.                Oberfinanzdirektion            Telecom Italia Mobile make an identical payment —
                               Miinchen                                    considered by the Commission to be the most
                                                                           reasonable course of action — was never discussed . Such
                         ( Case C-405/95 )                                 a measure was never envisaged at that stage and the
                            ( 96/C 46/17)                                  Italian Government had no opportunity to express its
                                                                           views on the subject. That fact alone is sufficient to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     support the view that Italy's right to a fair hearing was
European Communities by a decision of the Finanzgericht                    infringed, but also in the case of the equivalent
                                                                           corrective    measures     referred   to  in  the    second
Miinchen ( Financial Court, Munich ) of 14 December 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 December                    subparagraph of Article 1 of the contested decision, the
1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bioforce GmbH              discussions were incomplete and did not ensure the right
v. Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen on the following                           to a fair hearing.
questions :
                                                                       2 . The contested decision is predicated on the assumption
1 . Is   the    Common         Customs    Tariff  —    Combined            that the Italian Government 'has imposed an initial
    Nomenclature 1 994 — to be interpreted as meaning that                 payment for the grant of a second concession' in relation
                                                                           to GSM radiotelephony .
    products such as Echinacea Drops ( extract of echinacea
    purpurea e herba and e radice in 56,1 % alcohol by                     That assumption is incorrect. The Italian Government
    weight, for protection against colds and influenza and                 has not exacted any initial payment from tenderers
    for strengthening resistance to colds ) are to be classified           competing for the grant of a second GSM concession.
    under heading 3004 — Medicaments consisting of                         Accordingly, a national measure for the purposes of
    unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses,                 Article 90 ( 1 ) does not exist in the situation in
    put up . . . for retail sale ?                                         question.
2 . If not, is the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted             3 . The contested decision is unlawful and should therefore
    as meaning that products such as those referred to in                   be annulled, since it is based on the speculation that the
     Question 1 are to be classified as 'other' spirituous                  first operator will abuse its dominant position, conduct
     beverages under subheading 2208 90 69 ?                               which is merely potential, not actual : it has not been
                                                                            shown that such abuse has taken place, nor is it possible
                                                                            that such abuse ever could take place .


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2002 in Case T-306/01 R Abdirisak Aden and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Sanctions against the Taliban of Afghanistan — Freezing of funds — Urgency)

text:
C 191/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.8.2002
Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the Bar of                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
England and Wales — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                                  INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung: Registrar, has made an order in                                         of 7 May 2002
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-306/01 R Abdirisak Aden and Others v Council
1.    Dismisses the application.                                            of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs, incurred both in
      these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief in        (Proceedings for interim measures — Common foreign
      Cases T-18/01 R and T-18/01 R III, and pay the costs                  and security policy — Sanctions against the Taliban of
      incurred by the Commission in these proceedings and in the                    Afghanistan — Freezing of funds — Urgency)
      proceedings for interim relief in Case T-18/01 R.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/46)
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                                     (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                            In Case T-306/01 R: Abdirisak Aden, resident in Spånga
                                                                            (Sweden), Abdulaziz Ali, resident in Järfälla (Sweden), Ahmed
                                                                            Yusuf, resident in Spånga, Al Barakaat International Foun-
                                                                            dation, established in Spånga, represented by L. Silbersky and
                                                                            T. Olsson, lawyers, against Council of the European Union
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and I. Rådestad) and Commission of
                              INSTANCE                                      the European Communities (Agents: A. Van Solinge and
                                                                            J. Enegren) — application for suspension of the implemen-
                       of 19 February 2002                                  tation of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
                                                                            2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to
                                                                            Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the
in Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of                        freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the
                  the European Communities                                  Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/
                                                                            2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2199/2001 of 12 November 2001 amending, for the
(Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Dependent child                 fourth time, Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16)
allowance — Suspension of operation of a measure —                          in so far as they apply to the applicants, until there has been a
                         Urgency — None)                                    ruling on the substance — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance has made an order on 7 May 2002, the operative part
                          (2002/C 191/45)                                   of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Weitnau (Germany), represented by V. Salvatore, lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                  Action brought on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH
and A. Dal Ferro) — application for suspension of operation                          against the Council of the European Union
of the Commission’s decision of 26 September 2001 rejecting
the complaint lodged by the applicant, and of the decision of
4 July 2001 by which the Commission suspended payment to                                             (Case T-154/02)
the applicant of the dependent child allowance in favour of his
daughter — the President of the Court of First Instance made                                         (2002/C 191/47)
an order on 19 September 2002, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Communities on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH,
                                                                            Waldshut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur,
                                                                            lawyer.


title: Case C-1/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2008 — Athesia Druck Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2008 — Athesia Druck Srl v Ministero delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-1/08)
   (2008/C 64/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Athesia Druck Srl

      Defendants: Ministero delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   Question referred
   Where — for VAT purposes, and in accordance with Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment — is the place of supply in the case of an advertising service which is supplied by an entity established in the territory of a Member State of the European Community to a customer which is established outside the Community but has a tax representative in the territory of a Member State? And, in particular, is it (i) the location of the recipient of the advertising message, or (ii) the place of establishment of the company which is the non-Community company's tax representative for Italy, or (iii) the place of establishment of the non-Community company purchasing the advertising service, or (iv) the place of establishment of the non-Community company's client?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-287/12 P: Appeal brought on 7 June 2012 by Ryanair Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/11

         Appeal brought on 7 June 2012 by Ryanair Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 March 2012 in Case T-123/09: Ryanair Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-287/12 P)
   2012/C 303/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic, Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2012, notified to the Appellant on 29 March 2012, in Case T-123/09 Ryanair Ltd v European Commission:

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that part of the European Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case C26/2008 (Loan of 300 million euros to Alitalia SpA) is void in so far as it does not order the recovery of the aid from the successor(s) of Alitalia and grants Italy additional time to implement this decision;

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that the entire decision of 12 November 2009 in State aid case N510/2008 (Sale of assets of Alitalia SpA) is void,

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ryanair;

         alternatively,

               —

               refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; and

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               Concerning the Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case N510/2008 (Sale of assets of Alitalia SpA):

                           1.

                           Breach of law and procedure regarding admissibility. The General Court refused to acknowledge Ryanair's challenge against the merits of the Commission's decision and re-defined the subject matter of Ryanair's action as an action exclusively seeking to safeguard its procedural rights:

                           2.

                           Infringement of Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). The obligations and monitoring mechanisms added to the measure as initially notified constituted modifications and conditions of the type attached to decisions pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by reason of a mistaken qualification of the obligations and monitoring mechanisms as undertaking;

                           3.

                           Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 through the General Court's refusal to sanction the Commission's failure to examine all the relevant characteristics of the measures in their context:

                           4.

                           Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The General Court found that the Commission did not have to examine options other than the sale of Alitalia assets as notified by Italy. By not considering whether a private investor would have chosen an alternative solution, the General Court erred in law;

                           5.

                           Other failures to apply the market economy investor principle;

                           6.

                           Failure to identify the party having to repay the aid. The appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by disregarding the economic continuity between Alitalia and CAI.

               Concerning the Commission's decision of 12 November 2008 in State aid case C26/2008 (Loan of 300 million euros to Alitalia SpA): failure to state reasons to support the finding of inadmissibility.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
   OJ L 83, p. 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 November 1995 in Case C-484/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Luxembourg Conseil d'Etat): Peter Svensson, Lena Svensson v. Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme (Free movement of capital - Freedom to provide services - Interest rate subsidy on building loans - Loan by a credit institution not approved in the Member State granting the subsidy)

text:
3 . 2 . 96             EN |              Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 31 / 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      applying to all employees, other than those in the
                      of 9 November 1995                                  categories listed in the Annex thereto, whose employers
                                                                          may, under the applicable national law, be made subject
in Case C-479/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 to proceedings involving their assets in order to satisfy
the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza): Andrea Francovich v.
                                                                          collectively the claims of creditors.
                     Repubblica Italiana (')
(Social policy — Protection ofemployees in the event of the
                                                                    2 . Consideration of the said Directive, to the extent that it
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Scope — Employees whose employer is not subject to                        protects only employees whose employers are subject to
 procedures to satisfy collectively the claims of creditors)              proceedings involving their assets in order to satisfy
                                                                          collectively the claims of creditors, has disclosed no
                          ( 96/C 31/01 )                                  factor ofsuch a kind as to affect its validity in the light of
                                                                          the principle of equal treatment.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    ( 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-479/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(District Magistrate's Court, Vicenza ), Italy, for a                                     of 14 November 1995
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Andrea Francovich and Repubblica Italiana             in Case C-484/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
— on the interpretation and vilidity of Article 2 of Council        Luxembourg Conseil d'Etat): Peter Svensson, Lena
Directive    80/987/EEC of 20        October   1980 on the             Svensson v. Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme O
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to          (Free movement ofcapital — Freedom to provide services —
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of       Interest rate subsidy on building loans — Loan by a credit
their employer ( OJ 1980 No L 283 , p. 23 ) — the Court,            institution not approved in the Member State granting the
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                                              subsidy)
Kakouris, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of                                          ( 96/C 31 /02 )
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann
( Rapporteur), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                                     (Language of the case: French)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
on 9 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as                         published in the European Court Reports)
follows :
                                                                    In Case C-484/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1 . Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on             of the EC Treaty by the Luxembourg Conseil d'Etat for a
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     relating to the protection ofemployees in the event ofthe      court between Peter Svensson, Lena Gustavsson and the
     insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as            Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme — on the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 /2              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
interpretation of Articles 67 and 71 of the EC Treaty — the            compulsory scheme, established by law as an optional
Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                scheme and operating according to the principle of
D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ),              capitalization in keeping with the rules laid down by the
G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de                  authorities in particular with regard to conditions for
Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P. Jann,            membership, contributions and benefits, is an undertaking
FL Ragnemalm and L. Sevòn, Judges; Advocate General ;                  within the meaning of Article 85 et seq . of the EC
M. B. Elmer, Registrar; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal                Treaty.
Administrator, gave a judgment on 14 November 1995 , the
operative part of which is as follows :                                (') O J No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
It is not compatible with Articles 59 and 67 ofthe EC Treaty
for a Member State to make the grant ofa housing benefit, in
particular an interest rate subsidy, subject to the
requirement that the loans intended to finance the
construction, acquisition or improvement of the housing                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
which is to benefit from the subsidy have been obtained                                    of 22 November 1995
from a credit institution approved in that Member State,
which implies that it must be established there.                       in Case C-443/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Elengtiko Sinedrio ): Ioannis Vougioukas v. Idrima
                                                                                Koinonikon Asphalisseon ( IKA ) (')
(') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                       (Interpretation and validity of Article 4 (4) of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1408/71 and interpretation ofArticles 48 and SI
                                                                       of the Treaty — Special schemes for civil servants — Greek
                                                                                doctor employed in a German hospital)
                                                                                ( 96/C 3 1 /04
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 16 November 1995                                              (Language of the case: Greek)
in Case C-244/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the French Conseil d'Etat ): Fédération Française des                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Sociétés d'Assurance v. Ministry of Agriculture and                             published in the European Court Reports)
                             Fisheries (')
                                                                       In Case C-443/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
(Article 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty — Concept of an
 'undertaking' — Organization managing an optional                     of the EC Treaty from the Elengtiko Sinedrio ( Court of
            supplementary social security scheme)                      Auditors ) ( Greece ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       proceedings pending before that court between Ioannis
                            ( 96/C 31 /03 )                           Vougioukas and Idrima Koinonikon Asphalisseon ( IKA ) —
                                                                       on the interpretation and validity of Article 4 ( 4 ) of Council
               (Language of the case: French)                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed persons,
                                                                       to self-employed persons and to members of their families
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                       moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                                                                       1983 No L 230, p. 6 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
In Case C-244/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177            Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
of the EC Treaty by the French Conseil d'Etat for a                    Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A.
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn,
court between Federation Française des Sociétés                        C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
d'Assurance, Societe Paternelle-Vie, Union des Assurances              L. Sevòn, Judges ; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
de Paris-Vie, Caisse d'Assurance et de Prévoyance Mutuelle             General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
des Agriculteurs on the one hand, and Ministry of                      given a judgment on 22 November 1995 , in which it
Agriculture and Fisheries on the other, on the interpretation          rules :
of Article 85 et seq . of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and             1 . The term 'civil servants ' in Article 4 (4) of Council
D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,                application of social security schemes to employed
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                        persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
L. Sevòn, Judges; Advocate General : G. Tesauro, Registrar:                their families moving within the Community, as
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
given a judgment on 16 November 1995 , the operative part                  No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , does not refer only to civil
of which is as follows :
                                                                           servants covered by the derogation provided for in
                                                                           Article 48 (4) of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court,
A non-profit-making organization which manages an                          but to all civil servants employed by a public authority
old-age insurance scheme intended to supplement a basic                    and persons treated as such.


title: Case C-677/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 1999/31/EC — Articles 6(a), 8, 9(a) to (c), 11(1) and 12 — Directive 2008/98/EC — Articles 13, 23 and 36(1) — Waste management — Placing of waste in landfill — No valid landfill authorisation — Malfunctions in the operation of the landfill site)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/15

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-677/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/31/EC - Articles 6(a), 8, 9(a) to (c), 11(1) and 12 - Directive 2008/98/EC - Articles 13, 23 and 36(1) - Waste management - Placing of waste in landfill - No valid landfill authorisation - Malfunctions in the operation of the landfill site))
   (2015/C 046/20)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares, as regards the Kiato landfill site, that:

                           —

                           by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management at the Kiato landfill site is carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment and to ensure that the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled management of waste at said landfill site is prohibited, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives;

                           —

                           by tolerating the operation of the said landfill site without a valid permit complying with the conditions and content laid down for the grant of such a permit and, consequently, without the holder of the waste or the operator of the said landfill site being able to prove, before or at the time of delivery of the waste, that the waste can be accepted at the site in accordance with the conditions set out in the permit, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8, 9(a) to (c) and 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste and Article 23 of Directive 2008/98; and

                           —

                           in failing to ensure that, during the operational phase of a landfill, the operator implements the control and monitoring programme referred to in Annex III to Directive 1999/31, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(a) of that directive.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-232/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Politierechtbank te Mechelen): Criminal procedure against Hans van Lent (Freedom of movement for workers — Vehicle leasing — Obligation to register vehicle in worker's Member State of residence)

text:
C 275/14                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
2.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39           company established in that second Member State, and made
      EC) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the              available to the worker by his employer who is also established in the
      Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                   second Member State.
      workers within the Community are to be interpreted as meaning
      that they preclude the grant, under conditions such as those laid
                                                                              (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
      down in Article 50a of the Gehaltsgesetz 1956 (law on salaries
      of 1956), as amended in 1997, of a special length-of-
      service increment which, according to the interpretation of the
      Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) in its judgment of 24 June
      1998, constitutes a loyalty bonus.
3.    An infringement of Community law, such as that stemming in                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      the circumstances of the main proceedings from the judgment
      of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of 24 June 1998, does not have                                   of 30 September 2003
      the requisite manifest character for liability under Community
      law to be incurred by a Member State for a decision of one of           in Case C-239/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
      its courts adjudicating at last instance.                                         mission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                    (Agriculture — EAGGF — Partial annulment of Regulation
                                                                              (EC) No 690/2001 — Special market support measures in
                                                                              the beef sector — Implementing regulation of the Com-
                                                                              mission providing for compulsory co-financing by the Mem-
                                                                                ber States)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/23)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         of 2 October 2003                                                        in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-232/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Politierechtbank te Mechelen): Criminal procedure                         In Case C-239/01, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D.
                     against Hans van Lent (1)                                Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Sedemund) supported
                                                                              by Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: J. Molde and J. Bering
                                                                              Liisberg) with an address for service in Luxembourg v Com-
(Freedom of movement for workers — Vehicle leasing —                          mission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß and
Obligation to register vehicle in worker’s Member State of                    M. Niejahr): Application for annulment of Article 5(5) of
                               residence)                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 of 3 April 2001
                                                                              on special market support measures in the beef sector (OJ
                           (2003/C 275/22)                                    2001 L 95, p. 8), in so far as that provision requires each
                                                                              Member State concerned to finance 30 % of the price of the
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            meat purchased under that regulation, the Court, composed of:
                                                                              G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
                                                                              R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
                                                                              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case C-232/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    30 September 2003, in which it:
EC by the Politierechtbank te Mechelen (Belgium) for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                    1.    Annuls Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/
court against Hans van Lent, on the interpretation of Article                       2001 of 3 April 2001 on special market support measures in
39 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                         the beef sector in so far as that provision requires each Member
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr                       State concerned to finance 30 % of the price of the meat
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                      purchased under that regulation;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                    2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
Article 39 EC precludes national rules of a Member State, such as
those in the present case, which prohibit a worker who is domiciled           (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
in that Member State from using on its territory a vehicle registered
in another neighbouring Member State, belonging to a leasing


title: Joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — LTTE v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 to situations of armed conflict — Possibility for an authority of a third State to be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Reference to terrorist acts — Need for a decision of a competent authority for the purpose of Common Position 2001/931)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — LTTE v Council
   (Joined Cases T-208/11 and T-508/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 to situations of armed conflict - Possibility for an authority of a third State to be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Reference to terrorist acts - Need for a decision of a competent authority for the purpose of Common Position 2001/931))
   2014/C 421/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: V. Koppe, A.M. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented: in Case T-208/11, initially by M. Bulterman, N. Noort and C. Schillemans, and subsequently, as well as in Case T-508/11, by C. Wissels, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, H. Walker and S. Brighouse, and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer, H. Walker and E. Jenkinson, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Gray, Barrister) (intervener in Case T-208/11 only); and European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by Castillo de la Torre and É. Cujo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, initially, in Case T-208/11, for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 of 31 January 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 14), and, in Case T-508/11, for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2011 of 31 January 2011, No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011, No 1375/2011 of 22 December 2011, No 542/2012 of 25 June 2012, No 1169/2012 of 10 December 2012, No 714/2013 of 25 July 2013, No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 and No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) Nos 610/2010, 83/2011, 687/2011, 1375/2011, 542/2012, 1169/2012, 714/2013 and 125/2014 in so far as those measures concern the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE);

               2)

               Maintains the effects of Implementing Regulation No 790/2014 for three months following delivery of this judgment;

               3)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the LTTE;

               4)

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18. 6. 2011.