title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 1999 in Case C-172/97: Commission of the European Communities v SIVU du plan d'eau de la Vallée du Lot and Hydro-Réalisations SARL (Arbitration clause - Non-performance of a contract)

text:
C 226/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.8.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                            of 8 June 1999
                                                                                of 10 June 1999
in Joined Cases C-338/97, C-344/97 and C-390/97 (refer-
ences for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof): Erna Pelzl and Others v Steiermärkische Lan-                   in Case C-172/97: Commission of the European Communi-
desregierung (C-338/97), Wiener Städtische Allgemeine                      ties v SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot and
Versicherungs AG and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung                                        Hydro-Réalisations SARL(1)
(C-344/97) and STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v Kärntner
                 Landesregierung (C-390/97) (1)
                                                                               (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of a contract)
(Article 33 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Turnover taxes
— Contributions to tourism associations and to a tourism
                          development fund)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/03)
                           (1999/C 226/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the cases: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-338/97, C-344/97 and C-390/97: references
to the Court under Article 234 EC (ex Article 177) by the                  In Case C-172/97: Commission of the European Communities
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) (Austria) for a              (Agents: initially Richard B. Wainwright and Jean-Francis Pas-
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  quier, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis and Stéphanie Ponsot,
court between Erna Pelzl and Others v Steiermärkische Landes-              subsequently Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier Couvert–Cas-
regierung (C-338/97), Wiener Städtische Allgemeine Versi-                  téra, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis) v SIVU du plan d’eau de la
cherungs AG and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung (C-344/97)                Vallée du Lot otherwise known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la
and STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v Kärntner Landesre-                      Vallée du Lot, a public enterprise established in La Canourgue,
gierung (C-390/97) — on the interpretation of Article 33 of                France, and Hydro-Réalisations SARL, a company established
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on                 in Rodez, France — application by the Commission of the
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                European Communities under Article 238 EC (ex Article 181)
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                      seeking recovery of an advance of ECU 83 928 paid by the
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) —                        Commission for completion of a project entitled Plan d’eau
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet                   sur le Lot. Intégration d’une microcentrale hydroélectrique
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann,               basse chute dans le seuil, (Stretch of water on the River Lot
D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate Gen-               — Incorporation in the barrage weir of a small low-head
eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has           hydro-electric power station), together with interest as agreed
given a judgment on 8 June 1999, in which it held that:                    in the contract at the rate applied by the European Monetary
                                                                           Cooperation Fund for its transactions in ecus published on the
The Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the             first working day of each month as from 17 January 1991 and
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover        interest at the legal rate determined annually by decree
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                 published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française as
assessment, and in particular Article 33 thereof, does not preclude a      from 28 February 1993 — the Court (Third Chamber),
charge of the kind introduced by the Steiermärkische Tourismusgesetz,      composed of J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the
the Tiroler Tourismusgesetz and the Kärntner Fremdenverkehrsabga-          Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges;
begesetz, which is payable by traders in a federal Land who have an        S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-
economic interest in tourism, which is calculated, in principle, on the    ment on 10 June 1999, in which it:
basis of annual turnover and from which input tax is not deductible.
                                                                           1. Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997; OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                                known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                                Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities the sum of
                                                                                EUR 83 928, together with contractual interest with effect from
                                                                                31 May 1991 until discharge of the debt in full;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 226/3
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 — the sum of ITL 246 000 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 December 1986 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
3. Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
     known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 49 200 000, together with interest at the
     Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay the costs.
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 March 1988 until the day
                                                                                on which repayment is fully effected;
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                     — the sum of ITL 110 800 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 June 1988 until the day
                                                                                on which repayment is fully effected;
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 49 200 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 August 1988 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 158 400 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 November 1986 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                         (Third Chamber)                                   3. Orders Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the costs.
                          of 10 June 1999                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
in Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communi-
          ties v Comune di Montorio al Vomano(1)
(Article 238 EC (ex Article 181) — Arbitration clause —                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               Non-performance of two contracts)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (1999/C 226/04)
                                                                                of 10 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-346/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        the Länsrätten i Dalarnas län): Braathens Sverige AB,
                                                                             formerly Transwede Airways AB v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils supplied for use
                                                                           as aviation fuel for purposes other than private pleasure
                                                                                flying — Exemption from the harmonised duty)
In Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Paolo Stancanelli assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro) v                                            (1999/C 226/05)
Comune di Montorio al Vomano acting through its legal
representative for the time being, represented by Paolo Scar-
pantoni, of the Teramo Bar — application under Article 238                                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
EC (ex Article 181) for an order requiring the defendant. first,
to reimburse advance payments made by the Commission to
the defendant in connection with two contracts for the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
completion of a demonstration project relating to the exploi-                                  in the European Court Reports)
tation of alternative energy sources and, second, to pay the
Commission damages by way of compensation for the damage
suffered — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                         In Case C-346/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de               EC (ex Article 177 of the EC Treaty) by the Länsrätten i
Almeida and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                  Dalarnas län for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                pending before that court between Braathens Sverige AB,
on 10 June 1999, in which it:                                              formerly Transwede Airways AB and Riksskatteverket — on
                                                                           the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Directive
                                                                           92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
1. Orders Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay to the Com-                  structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
     mission, under Contracts Nos WE 147/85 and HY 149/85:                 p. 12) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann


title: Case C-142/13: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Bright Service SA v Repsol Comercial de Produtos Petrolíferos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Exclusive purchasing agreement — Exemption — Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Agreement to which the exemption applies — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Agreement to which the exemption does not apply — Temporal effects of the exemption)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/4

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Bright Service SA v Repsol Comercial de Produtos Petrolíferos SA
   (Case C-142/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Exclusive purchasing agreement - Exemption - Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Agreement to which the exemption applies - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Agreement to which the exemption does not apply - Temporal effects of the exemption))
   2014/C 184/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bright Service SA

      Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Produtos Petrolíferos SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) and Article 3(1) and (5)(a) and Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Temporal effects — Exclusive distribution agreement for motor-vehicle fuels and other fuels between a supplier and a service station operator — Agreement concluded under Regulation No 1984/83 having effect after the entry into force of Regulation No 2790/1999 — Agreement which does not satisfy the requirements of those two regulations

      Operative part of the order

   Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that a contract — containing a non-compete clause — which was already in force on 31 May 2000 and which satisfies the conditions laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1582/97 of 30 July 1997, but which does not satisfy the conditions of Regulation No 2790/1999, is excepted, under Article 12(2), from the scope of Article 81(1) EC only until 31 December 2001.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22. 6. 2013.


title: Case T-125/15: Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)
   (Case T-125/15)
   (2015/C 171/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘UNICORN’ — Community trade mark No 11 014 701

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 150/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;

               —

               OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks.


title: Case T-565/10: Action brought on 21 December 2010 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/26

         Action brought on 21 December 2010 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)
   (Case T-565/10)
   2011/C 55/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by U. Ulrich, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2010 in Case R 1038/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Highprotect’ for goods in Class 6.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark concerned is not devoid of distinctive character and is not descriptive.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case T-261/13: Action brought on 3 May 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/29

         Action brought on 3 May 2013 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-261/13)
   2013/C 189/59
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langers, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Regulation No 119/2013, in so far as Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013 cannot be separated from the other provisions of that regulation. Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013 lies at the core of that regulation, and the other provisions are therefore of no significance without Article 1(2);

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(2) of Regulation No 119/2013;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 2494/95 (1) because Eurostat is designated the entity that is to establish and update the guidelines.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU in that Eurostat has been authorised to establish and update legally binding guidelines.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 338(1) TFEU in that guidelines, instead of one of the legal instruments listed in Article 288 TFEU, are used for the purposes of establishing harmonised indices of consumer prices at constant tax rates (HICP-CT).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 5(3) and 14(3) of Regulation No 2494/95, read in conjunction with Article 5a of Decision 1999/468, (2) in that a different procedure is laid down than the regulatory procedure with scrutiny.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 291 TFEU, read in conjunction with Regulation No 182/2011, (3) in relation to the failure to prescribe one of the procedures laid down in Regulation No 182/2011 for the establishment and updating of the guidelines.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 of 23 October 1995 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices (OJ 1995 L 257, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).


title: Case C-5/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of 12 November 2001 in the case of Silvia Becker against Land Hessen

text:
C 109/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
9.   Is it reasonable for such costs to be taken into account as        4.   Is an apparently neutral criterion in a legal provision to
     a matter of necessity (Q. 8) if the burden of additional                be judged as to its necessity solely on the basis of the
     staff-administration costs is imposed solely on earlier                 motives and grounds for enactment which are apparent
     part-time employees, hence predominantly women, even                    from the legislative process, in particular where the
     though the expansion of part-time employment oppor-                     existence of such grounds is documented in the procedure
     tunities at the time of the legislative amendment in that               leading to adoption of the legislation and demonstrably
     regard as a matter of priority pursued the objective of                 constituted the relevant reason for the enactment?
     reducing general unemployment by the partial absorption
     of surplus male and female applicants to the public
     service?
                                                                        5.   In so far as regard may in addition (Q.4) also be had to
                                                                             other legitimate aims of the legislation as justificatory
(1) OJ L 225, p. 40.                                                         grounds within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive
(2) OJ L 6, p. 24.                                                           97/80/EC, or under the case law of the Court of Justice
(3) OJ L 14, p. 6.                                                           on the establishment of indirect discrimination on the
                                                                             ground of sex, can a national court in that connection of
                                                                             its own motion establish legitimate aims for a provision
                                                                             of law and in a proper case use them to justify a
                                                                             distinguishing criterion, in particular where its reasoning
                                                                             in that regard is founded on considerations inherent
                                                                             in the legal system? Can it also do so, where such
                                                                             considerations are not discernibly reflected in the grounds
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                     for the enactment documented in the course of the
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 12 November 2001                         legislative procedure?
      in the case of Silvia Becker against Land Hessen
                          (Case C-5/02)                                 6.   Can the discrimination which may initially be established
                                                                             in regard to calculation of the pensions of older part-time
                        (2002/C 109/33)                                      civil servants as a proportion of final salary be justified in
                                                                             the nature of a legitimate aim as necessary where that
                                                                             discrimination is intended, as it were, to offset a minimum
                                                                             pension acquired during the first ten years of service with
                                                                             no account being taken of the reduction in working time,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             although the benefits of civil servants’ pensions are met
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                             solely from general budgetary resources without any
(Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 12 November
                                                                             contribution by female officials? As justification for
2001, received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2002, for
                                                                             necessity, if appropriate on an ancillary basis, can refer-
a preliminary ruling in the case of Silvia Becker against Land
                                                                             ence be made to the fact that pension benefits are in the
Hessen on the following questions:
                                                                             nature of maintenance support and to their characteristic
                                                                             as a traditional principle of the professional civil service
1.   Is the grant of an old-age pension under the provisions                 under Article 33(5) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz)?
     of the German law on pensions for civil servants subject
     to Article 119 of the EC Treaty, now superseded by
     Article 141(1) and (2) EC, in conjunction with Directive
     86/378/EEC (1), or to the provisions of Directive
                                                                        7.   If such discrimination is deemed to be necessary as
     79/7/EEC (2)?
                                                                             determined under Question 6, can a reduction in the rate
                                                                             of pension for older female and male officials with
2.   Do benefits under the law on pensions for civil servants                entitlement to benefits far above the minimum pension
     constitute a scheme under Article 6(1)(h) of Directive                  in respect of at least 10 reckonable years of service be
     86/378/EEC with the consequence that, irrespective of                   still regarded as reasonable (proportionate), if the amount
     financing by budgetary resources, it is legitimate to take              of such reduction is calculated on a linear basis by
     into account actuarial factors or analogous matters in                  reference not only to the extent of reduced working time
     order to differentiate levels of benefit?                               but also to the duration of full-time employment in
                                                                             relation to that of part-time employment although,
3.   Are the matters required to justify the indirect discrimi-              for older female and male civil servants, the possibly
     nation on the ground of sex initially established under                 disproportionately favourable grant of a minimum pen-
     Article 2(2) of Directive 97/80/EC (3) applicable in the                sion acquired without account being taken of the
     case of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141(1)                reduction of their working time is no longer possible?
     and (2) EC, irrespective of whether a question arises in                Would it not in this context be (more) reasonable to
     judicial proceedings as to relaxation of the burden of                  abandon the disproportionate reduction in the rate of
     proof or whether that question is of no significance under              pension for lifelong and more senior female and male
     the principle applicable to judicial proceedings of official            officials and instead for there merely to be a proportionate
     establishment of facts?                                                 reduction in the minimum pension?
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/21
8.   Where the numbers of budgetary and established posts                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
     remain unchanged, can additional personnel costs                     Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 21 December
     incurred in the recruitment of additional persons by an              2001 in the case of Holin Groep B.V. c.s. against Staatsse-
     expansion of part-time employment, in contrast to the                                      cretaris van Financiën
     hitherto predominant full-time employment, justify the
     necessity of imposing these costs on part-time employees
     by way of a disproportionate reduction in their rate of
     pension, as occurred under the second and third clauses                                         (Case C-7/02)
     of the first sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the BeamtenVG
     in the version thereof applicable until 31 December
     1991?
                                                                                (2002/C 109/34)
9.   Is it reasonable for such costs to be taken into account as
     a matter of necessity (Q. 8) if the burden of additional
     staff-administration costs is imposed solely on earlier
     part-time employees, hence predominantly women, even                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     though the expansion of part-time employment oppor-                  European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
     tunities at the time of the legislative amendment in that            der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
     regard as a matter of priority pursued the objective of              21 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 Janu-
     reducing general unemployment by the partial absorption              ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Holin Groep
     of surplus male and female applicants to the public                  B.V. c.s. against Staatssecretaris van Financiën (State Secretary
     service?                                                             for Finance) on the following question:
                                                                          1.    Do Articles 5(7)(a) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1). or the
10. Does the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC                          European law principles of the protection of legitimate
     Treaty as part of the Treaty on European Union of 1992                     expectations and of legal certainty preclude — in a case
     (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 68) absolutely preclude the detailed                    not involving fraud or abuse or any question of a change
     rules for the inclusion of periods of employment prior to                  in planned use, as mentioned in paragraphs 50 and 51 of
     17 May 1990 from being examined under Article 141(1)                       the judgment of the Court of Justice in Schloßstraße (2)
     and (2) EC (ex Article 119 of the EC Treaty)? Does the                     — the charging of tax on the basis of the abovementioned
     prohibition on such examination also apply where after                     Article 5(7)(a) when a taxable person has deducted VAT
     17 May 1990 the provisions relevant to the inclusion of                    which he has paid for goods delivered, or services
     periods of employment completed before the relevant                        provided, to him with a view to the planned leasing,
     date of 17 May 1990 have been amended but those                            subject to VAT, of a particular immovable property, on
     amendments effect only a partial adjustment in line with                   the simple ground that, as a result of a legislative
     the requirements of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and for                   amendment, the taxable person no longer has the right
     certain categories effect no such favourable adjustment?                   to waive the exemption for that lease?
                                                                          2.    Would an affirmative response to the first question also
11. In determining adherence to the relevant date of 17 May                     apply to a right to deduct arising in the period between
     1990 in the enactment of laws is the date of publication                   notification of the legislative amendment mentioned in
     in the official gazette decisive, or is the matter determined              Question 1 and its entry into force? In other words, in
     by the conclusion of deliberations in the legislative bodies               the event of an affirmative response to Question 1, can
     and indeed even if the law requires the assent of the                      tax still be charged, on the basis of Article 5(7)(a), on the
     Federal Government?                                                        elements of the cost price referred to in Article 11 A(1)(b)
                                                                                of the Sixth Directive which were incurred after that
                                                                                notification date?
(1) OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40.
(2) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.                                                   (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
(3) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.
                                                                              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).
                                                                          (2) Judgement of 8.6.2000 in case C-396/98.


title: Case C-375/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/36/EC — Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-375/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/36/EC - Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2011/C 152/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and E. Adsera Ribera, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-350/01: Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
10.11.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 317/17
—    Infringement of the principles of proper administration.                 to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid
     In spreading the burden over all the Länder, the Com-                    fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (1), or, in any
     mission departed from an administrative practice which                   event, by failing to communicate the same to the
     had pertained for many years without any reason. In the                  Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     light of the legal scope of such a new procedure, it would               obligations under that directive;
     have been necessary on grounds of proper administration,
     foreseeability and transparency for the Commission to              —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     give notice of its change of policy and at least an outline
     thereof by way of a communication to the Member
     States. That applies a fortiori in so far as the question of
     supra-Länder burdens are of great political and legal
     significance in other Member States too, in particular             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those with federal or quasi-federal decentralised adminis-
     trative structures such as, for example, Austria and Spain.
     Beyond that, the question of the conditions on which it
     is possible to assume errors in a Member State as a whole          Article 249 EC, according to which directives are to be binding,
     on the basis of the conclusions of particular studies is of        as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
     vital importance to all the other Member States too.               which they are addressed, implies an obligation for the Member
                                                                        States to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid
                                                                        down in the directives. That time-limit expired on 1 July 2000
—    Infringement of Article 10 EC. The duty of loyal co-               without the Italian Republic having enacted the provisions
     operation to which the Community institutions are                  necessary to comply with the directive mentioned in the
     subject involves a duty to take into account the underlying        Commissions pleadings.
     administrative structures of the Member States. Respect
     for the fact that the Federal Republic of Germany is
     divided into autonomous Länder requires that financial             (1) OJ L 121 of 11.5.1999, p. 13.
     corrections in respect of individual Länder can only be
     made where the EAGGF has reached its own conclusions
     as to a breach of Community law to the detriment of the
     Community budget in those Länder.
(1) Commission Decision 2001/557/EC (OJ L 200, 25.7.2001, p. 28).
                                                                        Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-351/01)
Action brought on 17 September 2001 by the Com-                                                 (2001/C 317/32)
mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                            Republic
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 Septem-
                         (Case C-350/01)                                ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agents, with an address
                         (2001/C 317/31)                                for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Septem-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
acting as Agents.
                                                                              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
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   State other than that in which the qualification was
                                                                              obtained (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
—    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  obligations under that directive; and
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating             2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-225/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March 2002 in the case of Rosa García Blanco against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social

text:
10.8.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 191/21
     waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent                   comply fully with Directive 98/84/EC (1) of the European
     authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9               Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on
     of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation           the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of,
     is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?                     conditional access, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
2.   Does Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by
     Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     with Article 9 of Directive 75/442 or with any other
     provision of the same directive, preclude a Member State
     which has not adopted within the period prescribed one
     or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable               Pleas in law and main arguments
     disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
     permits to operate waste disposal installations such as
     landfills?
                                                                        In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                        directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3.   Does Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by               each Member State to which they are addressed.
     Directive 91/156, mean that the plan or plans relating in
     particular to ‘suitable disposal sites or installations’ must
     be drawn up not later than 1 April 1993, or does it mean           Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     that they must be drawn up within a reasonable period,             to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
     which may exceed the period prescribed for transposing             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
     the Directive into national law?                                   or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                        Community.
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 28.3.1991, p. 32.                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law or, of course,
                                                                        notified such measures to the Commission.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-219/02)
                        (2002/C 191/34)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March
                                                                        2002 in the case of Rosa Garcı́a Blanco against Instituto
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                                la Seguridad Social
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 June
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                (Case C-225/02)
represented by Maria Patakia and Niels Bertil Rasmussen, of its
Legal Service.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/35)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,             (Social Court) No 3 of Orense of 30 March 2002, received at
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.8.2002
the Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling           Appeal brought on 1 July 2002 by the International and
in the case of Rosa Garcı́a Blanco against Instituto Nacional de       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) against the
la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad              order of 18 April 2002 of the Fourth Chamber of the
Social on the following questions:                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-238/00 between (1) the International and Euro-
                                                                       pean Public Services Organisation (IPSO), (2) the Union
                                                                       of Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.) and the
                                                                                European Central Bank
1.   Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty on
     European Union (Article 6 and Articles 48 to 52 of
     the Treaty establishing the European Community) and                                       (Case C-241/02 P)
     Article 45 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
     of 14 June 1971, preclude a national provision under
     which retirement contributions which the Organismo                                         (2002/C 191/36)
     Gestor del Seguro del Desempleo paid on behalf of a
     worker for the period during which she was receiving
     certain unemployment benefits, are not taken into
     account for the purposes of covering the various qualify-         An appeal against the order of 18 April 2002 of the Fourth
     ing periods established in the national legislation and of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     giving entitlement to the old-age pension, when, because          Communities in Case T-238/00 between (1) the International
     of the long period of unemployment which it is sought             and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO), (2) the
     to protect, it is absolutely impossible for that worker to        Union of Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.) and the
     claim credit for retirement contributions other that those        European Central Bank was brought before the Court of Justice
     which have been invalidated by law, with the result that          of the European Communities on 1 July 2002 by the
     only workers who have exercised the right to freedom of           International and European Public Services Organisation
     movement are affected by that provision of national law           (IPSO), represented by Boris Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt, Roth
     and are unable to qualify for the national retirement             Rechtsanwälte, Eckenheimer Landstraße 38, D-60318 Frank-
     pension, despite the fact that, under Article 45 of               furt am Main, with an address for service at the offices of Marc
     the aforementioned (EEC) Regulation, those qualifying             Glesener, Chairman of the Association Luxembourgeoise des
     periods would have been regarded as completed?                    Employés des Banques et d’Assurances, 29 Avenue Monterey,
                                                                       B.P. 325, L-2013, Luxembourg.
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
2.   Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty on
     European Union (Article 6 and Articles 48 to 52 of
     the Treaty establishing the European Community) and               1.    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
     Article 48(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                     18 April 2002 in Case T-238/00 (1), notified to the
     Council of 14 June 1971, preclude national provisions                   appellants on 26 April 2002;
     under which retirement contributions which the Orga-
     nismo Gestor del Seguro de Desempleo paid on behalf of            2.    annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 7 July
     a worker for the period during which she was receiving                  2000;
     certain unemployment benefits, are not taken into
     account for the purposes of considering whether ‘the              3.    order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the
     total insurance or residence periods covered under the                  proceedings.
     legislation of that State amounts to one year’, when,
     because of the long period of unemployment which it is
     sought to protect, it is absolutely impossible for that
     worker to claim credit for retirement contributions
     other than those which fell due and were paid during              Pleas in law and main arguments
     unemployment, so that only workers who have exercised
     the right to freedom of movement are affected by that
     provision of national law and are unable to qualify for           In the contested order, the Court of First Instance incorrectly
     the national retirement pension, despite the fact that,           applied Community law by failing to observe the principle of
     under Article 48(1) of the aforementioned EEC Regu-               effective judicial protection (Articles 6 and 13 of ECHR and
     lation, the national Organismo Gestor could not be                the constitutional traditions of the Member States). It failed
     exempt from the obligation to award national benefits?            to observe the principle of effective judicial protection by
                                                                       incorrectly interpreting the expression ‘individual concern’ in
                                                                       paragraph four of Article 230 EC. The Court of First Instance
                                                                       defines the class of ‘all other persons’ too narrowly, by
                                                                       restricting it to trade unions and failing to take account of all
                                                                       other persons affected by the Conditions of Employment and
                                                                       Staff Rules and is therefore unable to see precisely what
                                                                       differentiates the applicants from ‘all other persons’, namely
                                                                       the fact that they are able to conclude collective agreements


title: Case C-78/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy)) — Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della Regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia v Domenico Valvo (Agriculture — Regulations (EEC) No 2328/91 and (EC) No 950/97 — Articles 17 and 18 — Compensatory allowances for permanent natural handicaps — Farmers receiving length-of-service pensions — Right to compensatory allowances — Limits)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy)) — Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della Regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia v Domenico Valvo
   (Case C-78/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulations (EEC) No 2328/91 and (EC) No 950/97 - Articles 17 and 18 - Compensatory allowances for permanent natural handicaps - Farmers receiving length-of-service pensions - Right to compensatory allowances - Limits)
   (2008/C 116/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della Regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia

      Defendant: Domenico Valvo
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures — National legislation refusing to grant the compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps to farmers in receipt of a length-of-service pension
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 17 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures confer on Member States the right to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer who fulfils the conditions laid down in those two articles. However, those articles do not preclude a Member State from refusing payment of such an allowance where that farmer is in receipt of a pension, in particular, a length-of-service pension.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-444/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2010 — Finanzamt Lüdenscheid v Christel Schriever

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 September 2010 — Finanzamt Lüdenscheid v Christel Schriever
   (Case C-444/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

      Defendant: Christel Schriever

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there a ‘transfer’ of a totality of assets within the meaning of Article 5(8) of 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 in the case where a trader transfers ownership of the stock and shop installations of his retail outlet to a purchaser and merely leases the premises which he owns to the purchaser?

               2.

               Is it relevant in that regard whether the premises were leased on the basis of a long-term lease contract for use or whether the lease contract is concluded for an indefinite period and may be terminated by either party at short notice?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-355/02: Action brought on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 305/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.12.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
                                                                                vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                       Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      Commission Directive 2000/57/EC of 22 September                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 76/
      895/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum                     2.     Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables
      and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
      vegetables respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                          Pleas in law and principle arguments
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          The obligation of the Member States to implement the
                                                                          directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
Pleas in law and principle arguments
                                                                          case that time-limit expired on 31.03.2001, by which time the
                                                                          Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.
The obligation of the Member States do implement the
directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          (1 ) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 78.
with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
case that time-limit expired on 31 March 2001, by which time
the Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 76.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du
                                                                          travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 Sep-
                                                                          tember 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian
                                                                                State
Action brought on 3 October 2002 by the Commission                                                   (Case C-358/02)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                               Austria
                                                                                (2002/C 305/20)
                           (Case C-355/02)
                           (2002/C 305/19)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the tribunal du travail
                                                                          de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 24 September 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     preliminary ruling in the case of Yamina Haddad against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   Belgian State on the following question:
on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,           Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement signed on
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             27 April 1976 between the Member States of the European
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner         Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                       approved on behalf of the Community by Regulation No 2211/
                                                                          78 of 26 September 1978 (1), be interpreted, inter alia in the
                                                                          light of Article 14 of the European Convention for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
                                                                          signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Article 1 of Protocol
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             No 1 thereto of 20 March 1952, as precluding a Member State
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                from refusing to grant a benefit such as a disability allowance,
      Commission Directive 2000/58/EC of 22 September                     as provided under its laws in favour of its nationals and
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 86/             citizens of the European Union, to a Moroccan national who
      362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of                 is a student and the wife of an unemployed Moroccan national,


title: Case C-148/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/923/EEC — Quality of shellfish waters — Designation of shellfish waters — Pollution reduction programmes — Setting control parameters)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-148/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 79/923/EEC - Quality of shellfish waters - Designation of shellfish waters - Pollution reduction programmes - Setting control parameters)
   (2007/C 183/04)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, and N.J. Travers BL)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47) — Failure to designate certain shellfish waters, to establish pollution-reduction programmes and to set control parameters
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing:

                           —

                           in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters, to designate all shellfish waters requiring designation;

                           —

                           in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 79/923, to set all the required values in respect of shellfish waters designated or requiring designation pursuant to Article 4; and

                           —

                           in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 79/923, to take all necessary measures to establish pollution reduction programmes for waters requiring designation pursuant to Article 4,

                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-460/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Air transport — Groundhandling — Directive 96/67/EC)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-460/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
       (1)

   (Air transport - Groundhandling - Directive 96/67/EC)
   (2005/C 45/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-460/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 December 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Aresu and M. Huttunen) and Italian Republic (Agents: I.M. Braguglia and O. Fiumara) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that in so far as Legislative Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999 applying Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports incorporates, at Article 14, a social measure which is incompatible with Article 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 and sets out, at Article 20, interim provisions which are not authorised under the directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case F-31/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v Council

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/51

         Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-31/15)
   (2015/C 146/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Verlardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s pension statement for the month of May 2014 in so far as it contains pension adjustments at the rate of 0 % for 2011 and 0,8 % for 2012, and a claim for damages for the material loss allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of damages for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-634/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVERA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Frinsa LA CONSERVERA — Earlier EU figurative mark FRIUSA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVERA)
   (Case T-634/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Frinsa LA CONSERVERA - Earlier EU figurative mark FRIUSA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frigoríficos Unidos, SA (Riudellots de la Selva, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2015 (Case R 2382/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Frigoríficos Unidos and Frinsa del Noroeste.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Frinsa del Noroeste, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case T-94/11: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/83

         Order of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — AU Optronics v Commission
   (Case T-94/11) (1)

   2013/C 225/187
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case T-230/16: Action brought on 11 May 2016 – C & J Clark International v Commission

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/42

         Action brought on 11 May 2016 – C & J Clark International v Commission
   (Case T-230/16)
   (2016/C 260/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (Somerset, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay 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 European Commission violated the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU by proceeding on an incorrect legal basis;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Article 266 TFEU by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective; and

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its powers by using its competences for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred upon it.


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2001 in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive 93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allowance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign student who has met his own living expenses during the first years of his studies)

text:
C 317/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.11.2001
court between Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG and                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbg eV — on                       court between Rudy Grzelczyk and Centre public d’aide sociale
the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of                d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the                          Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by                     93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151,                  students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — the Court, composed of:
p. 32), in conjunction with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty              G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the                       and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward.
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                 (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
H.A: Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
a judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
It is not ‘impossible for practical reasons’, within the meaning of the      EC and 17 EC) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social
last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of          benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                  case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where
States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive        they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, to set out the compulsory warnings                Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the
in full on the container and packaging of a cosmetic product in the          freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no
language or languages prescribed in the Member State in which it is          such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.
to be marketed, where the producer or distributor wishes to label the
product in nine languages, including eight official languages of the
Community, for economic considerations and in order to facilitate the
movement of the product within the Community, and this entails               (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
abbreviating those warnings on the container and packaging.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 20 September 2001                                                       of 27 September 2001
in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk                         the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzoll-
v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-                                              amt Bremerhaven (1)
                               Neuve (1)
(Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive                         Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment
93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National                       — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity —
legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allow-                    Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs
ance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC)                           declaration — Concept of ‘special situation’)
No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign
student who has met his own living expenses during the first                                           (2001/C 317/04)
                         years of his studies)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2001/C 317/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-253/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary
In Case C-184/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du                      Bacardi GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven — on the
travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles), (Belgium) for           interpretation of Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation


title: Case C-256/03: Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 184/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        2.8.2003
Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of the                  2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
             European Communities against Ireland
                           (Case C-256/03)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 184/49)                               The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by the               (1) OJ L 181 of 20.07.2000, p. 65.
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Messrs Xavier Lewis and Michel van Beek, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-135/00 (1)
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                          (2003/C 184/51)
      Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating
      to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (1) Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in        By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      particular its Article 9 and under the Treaty establishing         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      the European Community.                                            register of Case C-135/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS-Ente Nazionale per le Strade,
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Lauro Cantieri Valsesia Spa v Consorzio Cooperative Costru-
                                                                         zioni.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 9 April 2002.
(1) OJ L 94, 09.04.1999, p. 24.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-225/00 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/52)
Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of                      By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             Luxembourg                                  register of Case C-225/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): Cavalleri Ottavio SpA v ANAS —
                           (Case C-273/03)                               Ente Nazionale per le Strade, Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA.
                           (2003/C 184/50)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-243/00 (1)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the                                        (2003/C 184/53)
Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or         By order of 7 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      tive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the              register of Case C-243/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the                 by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench
      laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Secretary of State for
      civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and        Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress.
      amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC
      (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) and, in any event,
      failing to communicate them to the Commission, the                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case F-97/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Vienne v Parliament (Civil service — Financial rules — Family allowances — Household allowance — End of entitlement to household allowance — Dissolution of marriage)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Vienne v Parliament
   (Case F-97/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Financial rules - Family allowances - Household allowance - End of entitlement to household allowance - Dissolution of marriage)
   2013/C 46/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Vienne (Moutfort, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament as to the date on which change of marital status took effect to be taken into consideration for the purposes of withdrawing the household allowance following the civil judgment declaring the applicant’s divorce

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Vienne to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.11, p. 47.


title: Case T-450/11: Action brought on 10 August 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — ESA (GALILEO)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/25

         Action brought on 10 August 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — ESA (GALILEO)
   (Case T-450/11)
   2011/C 298/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Space Agency (ESA) (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2011 in case R 1423/2005-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GALILEO’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 2742237

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1701167, of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2157501, of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 516799, of the figurative mark ‘powered by GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 330084, of the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2159069, of the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to appreciate that there was a high degree of similarity between the goods and services covered by the earlier CTM and the services covered by the contested CTM. In particular the Board of Appeal failed to appreciate that part of the relevant goods and services could be complementary, as well as aimed at the same consumer and for the same purpose. In the circumstances of the Board’s conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion was vitiated by error, bearing in mind the clear similarities between the marks and the fact that a lesser degree of similarity between these goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks.


title: Case T-1/08: Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/53

         Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission
   (Case T-1/08)
   (2008/C 64/85)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: T. Gackowski, legal adviser)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

               —

               in the alternative, declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as the Commission orders recovery of PLN 7 183 528 from the company Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o.;

               —

               declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those provisions concern the effecting of recovery from Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the form of order which it seeks, the applicant puts forward pleas in law which overlap with those raised by the applicant in Case T-440/07 Huta Buczek v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 22, p. 50.