title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-71/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose a directive)

text:
C 358/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 October 1998, the                         hire, provided that the tariffs are fixed with due
operative part of which is at follows:                                    regard for the public-interest criteria defined by Law
                                                                          No 298 and the public authorities do not hand over
                                                                          their prerogatives to private economic agents in taking
1. The application is dismissed;                                          into account, before the approval of proposals, of the
                                                                          observations of other public and private bodies and
                                                                          even by fixing tariffs ex officio.
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.                                             2. The concept of general interest to which the Court
                                                                          referred in its judgments in Case C-185/91 Reiff
                                                                          and in Case C-153/93 Delta Schiffahrts- und
                                                                          Speditionsgesellschaft corresponds to the concept of
                                                                          public interest mentioned in its judgment in Case
                                                                          C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     3. It is for the Member States to determine the specific
                      (Second Chamber)                                    criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in
                      of 1 October 1998                                   force under Italian law, and for the national courts to
                                                                          determine whether the criteria thus defined are
in Case C-38/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  respected in practice.
the Giudice di Pace di Genova): Autotrasporti Librandi
Snc di Librandi F. & C. v. Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi
                     Internazionali Srl (1)                          4. The fact that collective agreements such as those
                                                                          provided for in Article 13 of the Ministerial Decree of
(Competition Ð Road transport Ð Mandatory tariff Ð
                                                                          18 November 1982 can be concluded and that they
State legislation Ð Concepts of general interest and public
                                                                          are even enforceable under national law against
                           interest)
                                                                          operators who have not signed them does not have the
                        (98/C 358/08)                                     effect of restricting competition within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 85 of the Treaty.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-38/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Giudice di Pace di Genova                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Magistrate's Court, Genoa) (Italy), for a preliminary                                        (Sixth Chamber)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C.                                      of 1 October 1998
and Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Srl Ð on                    in Case C-71/97: Commission of the European
the interpretation of Article 3(f) and (g), and Articles 5, 85                    Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
and 86 of the EC Treaty and of the concepts of general
interest' and collective agreement' Ð the Court (Second             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                                    Failure to transpose a directive)
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G.
                                                                                (98/C 358/09)
Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1. Article 3(f) and (g), and Articles 5, 85, 86 and 90 of
     the EC Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     State which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be                       published in the European Court Reports)
     approved and brought into force by the State on the
     basis of proposals of a central committee the majority
     of whose members are representatives of the economic            In Case C-71/97: Commission of the European
     agents concerned and which extends the mandatory                Communities (Agent: Fernando Castillo de la Torre) v.
     tariffs applicable in the field of contracts for the            Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde) Ð
     carriage of goods by road to other types of contracts,          application for a declaration that, first, by failing to
     relating to different services, such as, in particular,         designate the zones considered to be vulnerable and to
     contracts under invitations to tender and contracts for         notify the Commission of those designations and, second,
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 358/5
by failing to establish the codes of good agricultural               certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 262,
practice and to notify the Commission thereof, the                   27.9.1976, p. 201), as amended by Council Directive
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under          91/173/EEC (OJ L 85, 5.4.1991, p. 34), and of
Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of                  Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters                 Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural               Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn
sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth              (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G.                Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-               which it has ruled:
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it:
                                                                     The limit value established in the first sentence of point 23
                                                                     of Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July
1. Declares that by failing to designate the zones                   1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
     considered to be vulnerable and to notify the                   administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
     Commission of those designations and by failing to              restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
     establish the codes of good agricultural practice for           substances and preparations, as amended by Council
     the autonomous communities other than Andalucia,                Directive 91/173/EEC of 21 March 1991, is applicable to
     Cantabria, Madrid, Murcia, Navarre and Valencia                 PCP, its salts and esters and to preparations produced
     and to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom               from those substances, but not to products treated with
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under             those substances or preparations.
     Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
     waters against pollution caused by nitrates from                (1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
     agricultural sources;
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 23 September 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96 (reference for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Roma): Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop. a.r.l.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Conata) (C-332/96), Agrindustria Srl (C-333/96) v.
                                                                     Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                        (AIMA) (1)
                      of 1 October 1998
                                                                     (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Ð Manifestly
in Case C-127/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                  identical question)
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Willi
                                                                                (98/C 358/11)
                Burstein v. Freistaat Bayern (1)
              (Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                         (98/C 358/10)
               (Language of the case: German)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   In Joined Cases C-332/96 and C-333/96: reference to the
                                                                     Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
                                                                     Pretura Circondariale di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary
In Case C-127/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht             between Consorzio Nazionale Tabacchi Soc. Coop. a.r.l.
Regensburg (Bavarian Administrative Court) (Germany),                (Conata) (C-332/96) and Agrindustria Srl (C-333/96) and
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
that court between Willi Burstein and Freistaat Bayern Ð             (AIMA) on the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of             No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws,                       agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              tobacco sector (OJ L 317, 8.12.1993, p. 30) Ð the Court,
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of          composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,


C 202/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.8.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s               (1) annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
      complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,                       complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,
      and at the same time annul the contested decision of                      and at the same time annul the contested decision of
      23 November 2001;                                                         23 November 2001;
(2) order Europol, primarily, to award the applicant two                  (2) order Europol to award the applicant two additional
      additional salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;                 salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;
      alternatively, order Europol to award the applicant one
      additional salary increment, effective from 1 July 2001;            (3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
(3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours                      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,
      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,                  what is due to him thereunder, together with interest at
      what is due to her thereunder, together with interest at                  the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;
      the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;
                                                                          (4) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of
(4) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours                      the costs of the proceedings.
      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case, the
      sum of 1 000 euros by way of compensation for the non-
      material damage suffered by her;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(5) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of
      the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
                                                                          adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
                                                                          increase to which he considers himself to be entitled.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes
The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
                                                                          Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
                                                                          applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
increase to which she considers herself to be entitled.
                                                                          necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
                                                                          with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes              exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the             making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the                for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance           the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director         treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-258/97 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/65)
Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Andreas Mausolf
                         against Europol                                                     (Language of the Case: Italian)
                         (Case T-209/02)
                         (2002/C 202/64)                                  By order of 12 June 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-258/97:
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          Società Eridania SpA and Others v Council of the European
                                                                          Union.
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 2002                 (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
by Andreas Mausolf, residing at Leiden (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis,
lawyers.


title: Case C-567/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — Mortgage loan agreement — Arbitration clause — Unfairness — Action by consumer — National procedural rule — Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai v Raiffeisen Bank Zrt
   (Case C-567/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Mortgage loan agreement - Arbitration clause - Unfairness - Action by consumer - National procedural rule - Lack of jurisdiction of the court hearing the action by a consumer for a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract to hear the application for a declaration of unfairness of terms in the same contract))
   (2015/C 118/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nóra Baczó, János István Vizsnyiczai

      Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national procedural rule pursuant to which a local court which has jurisdiction to rule on an action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration of invalidity of a standard contract does not have jurisdiction to hear an application by the consumer for a declaration of unfairness of contract terms in the same contract, unless declining jurisdiction by the local court gives rise to procedural difficulties that would make the exercise of the rights conferred on consumers by the European Union legal order excessively difficult. It is for the national court to carry out the necessary verifications in that respect.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-125/10: Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/34

         Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)
   (Case T-125/10)
   2010/C 148/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application, together with the annexes submitted, made against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 in Case R 612/2009-1, admissible; and

               —

               Annul the contested decision on the ground of incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94; (1)

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘69 Sex up’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 9, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38 and 41 (application No 5 418 108)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘sex:h:up’ No 305 31 669.9 for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition for all disputed goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To rescind the contested decision and reject the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 1996 in Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Competition - Dominant position - Definition of the product markets - Application of Article 86 of the Treaty to practices carried out by a dominant undertaking on a market distinct from the dominated market - Tied sales - Predatory prices - Fine)

text:
25 . 1 . 97             1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 26/5
       postponed to another date at the will of the transferor                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       or transferee.                                                                          of 26 November 1996
                                                                        in Case C-68/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(!) OJ No C 386, 31 . 12. 1994 .                                        the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): T. Port GmbH &c
( 2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26.                                Co .    KG     v.    Bundesanstalt     fur  Landwirtschaft  und
                                                                                Ernahrung ( 1 )
                                                                        (Bananas — Common organization of the markets —
                                                                        Import rules — Cases of hardship — Assessment of
                                                                                validity — Interim measures)
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/08 )
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 14 November 1996                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA v.
          Commission of the European Communities 0 )                    In Case C-68/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                        Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hessischer
 (Appeal — Competition — Dominant position —                            Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court,
Definition of the product markets — Application of                      Hesse ), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
Article 86 of the Treaty to practices carried out by a                  proceedings pending before that court between T. Port
 dominant undertaking on a market distinct from the                     GmbH & Co . KG and Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft
 dominated market — Tied sales — Predatory prices —                      und Ernahrung, supported by Federal Republic of
                                    Fine)
                                                                         Germany — on the interpretation of Articles 16 and 30 of
                               ( 971C 26/07)                             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
                                                                         1993 on the common organization of the market in
                                                                         bananas (2 ), on the validity of Article 19 of that
                                                                         Regulation and on the interpretation of the EC Treaty,
                  (Language of the case: English)                        with particular regard to a national court's power to order
                                                                         interim measures until rules dealing with cases of hardship
                                                                         are adopted — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 In Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA, whose                   Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 seat is in Pully, Switzerland, represented by Michel                    Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 Waelbroeck and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels                ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
 Bar, and by Vivien Rose, Barrister, with an address for                 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                 G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.
  8—10 rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the judgment                   Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein , Deputy
  of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber ) of                    Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
  6 October 1994 in Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak v. Commission                 26 November 1996, in which it has ruled :
  [1994] ECR 11-755, seeking to have that judgment set
  aside — the other party to the proceedings being: the                   1 . Article 16 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
  Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                       of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of
  Currall, assisted by Nicholas Forwood QC ) — the Court                      the market in bananas does not allow the Commission
  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the                    to lay down rules catering for cases of hardship arising
  First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                        from the fact that importers of third-country bananas
  Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet                     or non-traditional ACP bananas meet difficulties
  and P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                          threatening their existence when an exceptionally low
  Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                       quota was allocated to them on the basis of the
  for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November                      reference years to be taken into consideration pursuant
   1996 , in which it:                                                        to Article 19 (2) of the Regulation.
                                                                              Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 authorizes
   1 . Dismisses the appeal.                                                  and, depending on the circumstances, requires the
                                                                               Commission to lay down rules catering for cases of
                                                                               hardship arising from the fact that importers of third-
   2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.                                  country bananas or non-traditional ACP bananas
                                                                               meet difficulties threatening their existence when an
                                                                               exceptionally low quota has been allocated to them on
   (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                          the basis of the reference years to be taken into
                                                                               consideration pursuant to Article 19 (2) of that
                                                                               Regulation, where those difficulties are inherent in the
                                                                               transition from the national arrangements existing


title: Case T-440/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Mahmoudian v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/34

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Mahmoudian v Council
   (Case T-440/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Kronshagen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul point 2 of Section I A of the annex to Council Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and the Council's decision of 26 July 2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, (1) and Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation, in so far as the applicant's name has been placed on the list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen pursuant to that provision.
   The pleas in law and arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-439/10 Fulmen v Council, concerning the company of which the applicant is the managing director.

      (1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).


title: Case C-317/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Freedom of movement for workers — Access to employment — Local public service — Linguistic knowledge — Means of proof)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/14

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
      (Case C-317/14) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Freedom of movement for workers - Access to employment - Local public service - Linguistic knowledge - Means of proof))
      (2015/C 107/18)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, J. Van Holm and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Declares that by requiring candidates for posts in the local services established in the French-speaking or German-speaking regions, whose diplomas or certificates do not show that they were educated in the language concerned, to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union;

                  2)

                  Orders the Kingdom of the Belgium to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-198/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Cementownia Warta v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/39

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Cementownia ‘Warta’ v Commission
   (Case T-198/07)
   (2007/C 170/74)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Cementownia ‘Warta’ SA (represented by: P.K. Rosiak, legal adviser, and F. Puel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in which the Commission decided that certain aspects of the Polish National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for 2008-2012, notified to the Commission on 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Articles 9(1) and (3), 10 and 13(2) of and the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. The decision in question reduces the carbon dioxide emission limit in 2008-2012 by 26.7 % compared to the limit proposed by Poland in the national allocation plan for emission allowances notified to the Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are the same as those of the applicant in Case T-195/07.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).


title: Case C-47/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-Holsteinen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the administrative-law case of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and 3. Albertus Snoek against Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 109/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
2)    Is the object of the directive to provide protection in such        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
      a way that persons other than the authors of the fixture            (Belgium) Section d’administration, by judgment of 8 Feb-
      list may not, without authorisation, use the data in that           ruary 2002 in the case of Commune de Braine-le-Château
      fixture list for betting or other commercial purposes?              against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
                                                                               Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt
3)    For the purposes of the directive, does the use by Veikkaus
      relate to a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
      quantitatively, of the database, having regard to the fact
                                                                                (Case C-53/02)
      that, of the data in the fixture list, on each occasion only
      data necessary for one week is used in the weekly pools
      coupons, and the fact that the data relating to the matches
      is obtained and verified from sources other than the
      maker of the database continuously throughout the                                            (2002/C 109/48)
      season?
(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
    of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77,
    p. 20).
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
                                                                          (Council of State), Belgium (Administrative Section) of 8 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 February 2002,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Commune de Braine-le-
                                                                          Château against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
                                                                          Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt, on the
                                                                          following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-                      1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
Holsteinen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that                              Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
Court of 31 January 2002 in the administrative-law case                         on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and 3. Albertus Snoek                         18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
             against Federal Republic of Germany                                management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
                                                                                disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
                                                                                which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
                           (Case C-47/02)                                       a geographical map the precise locations of the planned
                                                                                waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria
                                                                                which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent
                          (2002/C 109/47)                                       authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9
                                                                                of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation
                                                                                is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holsteinen                 2.    Do Articles 4,5 and 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court, Schles-                    by Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction
wig-Holstein) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court                         with Article 9 of Directive 75/442, preclude a Member
Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the                   State which has not adopted within the period prescribed
administrative-law case of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and                   one or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable
3. Albertus Snoek against Federal Republic of Germany on the                    disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
following question:                                                             permits to operate waste disposal installations, such as
                                                                                landfills?
Are provisions of national law which require the nationality of
the flag State — in this instance German nationality — for the
exercise of the activity of master (captain) of a vessel used in
small-scale maritime shipping and flying the flag of that                 (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Member State compatible with Article 39 of the Treaty                     (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
establishing the European Community?


title: Case C-340/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — The Queen, M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Article 2(2) — Prohibition of making funds available to the persons listed in Annex I to that regulation — Scope — Social security and social assistance benefits paid to the spouse of a person included in Annex I)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords — United Kingdom) — The Queen, M and Others v Her Majesty’s Treasury
      (Case C-340/08) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Article 2(2) - Prohibition of making funds available to the persons listed in Annex I to that regulation - Scope - Social security and social assistance benefits paid to the spouse of a person included in Annex I)
      (2010/C 161/08)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      House of Lords

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: The Queen, M and Others

         Defendant: Her Majesty’s Treasury

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9) — Scope of the prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I — Social security or social assistance benefits provided by the State to such a person's spouse

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 561/2003 of 27 March 2003, must be construed as not applying to the provision by the State of social security or social assistance benefits to the spouse of a person designated by the committee created pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council of the United Nations and included in the list in Annex I to that regulation, as amended, on the grounds only that the spouse lives with that person and will or may use some of those payments to pay for goods and services which the designated person also will consume or from which he also will benefit.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-292/02: Action brought on 27 September 2002 by the Confederazione nazionale dei servizi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 274/38                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
Action brought on 27 September 2002 by the Confedera-                        three-year exemption from tax on profits, granted by Italy to
zione nazionale dei servizi against the Commission of the                    local public service undertakings with publicly-owned majority
                      European Communities                                   shareholdings within the meaning of Article 3(70) of Legge
                                                                             (Law) No 549/1995, and loans at reduced interest rates within
                           (Case T-292/02)                                   the meaning of Article 9a of Decreto Legge (Decree-Law)
                                                                             No 488/1986, in so far as it requires Italy to recover the said
                          (2002/C 274/65)                                    aids from the recipients, including the applicant.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         In support of its claims the applicant alleges:
                                                                             —     infringement of Article 87(1) EC and Regulation No 659/
                                                                                1999/EC by virtue of the absence of any effect on trade
An action against the European Commission was brought
                                                                                between the Member States. It argues in that regard that,
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                                for the purposes of applying Article 87(1) to an aid
on 27 September 2002 by the Confederazione nazionale dei
                                                                                measure, the Commission must identify and establish the
servizi, represented by C. Tessarolo and A. Vianello, lawyers.
                                                                                facts that are capable of showing, firstly, the existence of
                                                                                a system of competition in the relevant market sector
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        and, secondly, the possibility of the aid having a negative
                                                                                effect on trade within the Community. As it is, the
—     annul Article 2 of Commission Decision No C.27/99                            markets in which the companies formed under Legge
      (ex NN 69/99) by which the Commission declared                               (Law) No 142/90 were operating during the period under
      incompatible with the common market the measures                             consideration had not been liberalised; on the contrary,
      adopted by Italy in the form of a three-year exemption                       they were organised as local monopolies which were
      from tax on profits and in the form of loans to joint-stock                  totally closed to free competition. Furthermore, the
      companies with publicly-owned majority shareholdings                         particular nature of companies formed under Legge
      within the meaning of Legge (Law) No 142 of 8 June                           No 142/90 and their substantive corporate continuity as
      1990;                                                                        reincarnations of the municipalised and special undertak-
                                                                                ings had led the Italian legislature and national law to
—     alternatively, annul Article 3 of Decision No C.27/99 by
                                                                                confine the activities of the newly incorporated joint-
      which the Commission required Italy to recover from the                      stock companies within the local sphere of the relevant
      recipient undertakings the aid which had been declared
                                                                                undertaking;
      unlawful;
                                                                             —     infringement of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty and of
—     in any case, in the further alternative, annul Article 3 in                  Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Regulation No 659/1999,
      so far as it fixes interest on the basis of the reference rate               inasmuch as the defendant has classified the measures as
      used to calculate the equivalent subsidy in connection                       ‘new aid’, thereby infringing the procedural rules with
      with aid for regional purposes;                                              which the Commission must comply in the case of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                       ‘existing aid’;
                                                                             —     infringement of the derogation provided for in
                                                                                Article 86(2) EC, inasmuch as undertakings formed under
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Legge No 142/90 perform activities of general economic
                                                                                interest.
This action seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of
5 June 2002 (State Aid No 27/99), in so far as it declares                   The applicant also pleads infringement of the obligation to
unlawful and incompatible with the common market the                         state reasons.


title: Case C-205/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 30 April 2015 — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 30 April 2015 — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci
   (Case C-205/15)
   (2015/C 245/08)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov

      Defendants: Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci

      Question referred

   On a proper construction of Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude legislation such as Article 16 of the [Romanian] Constitution and Article 30 of Government Emergency Order No 80/2103, which enshrines the principle of equality before the law only as between citizens as natural persons and not between citizens as natural persons and legal persons governed by public law, and which, a priori, exempts legal persons governed by public law from the requirement to pay stamping fees and to lodge a security in order to gain access to justice, whilst making access to justice by natural persons conditional upon payment of stamping fees/the lodging of a security?


title: Case C-145/99: Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 188/18             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3.7.1999
either of the Member States concerned, against the taxable             The applicant claims that the Court should:
income of that company for the purposes of assessment to
corporation tax, whereas, if the permanent establishment were
located in the same Member State as the company, the business          (a) Declare that:
losses in question could certainly be set off against the taxable
income of that company?                                                    — by maintaining, in breach of Article 59 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty, a general prohibition whereby lawyers estab-
                                                                                lished in other Member States and practising in Italy in
                                                                                the exercise of the freedom to provide services do not
                                                                                have available to them the infrastructure needed by
                                                                                them to provide their services;
                                                                           — by making enrolment as a lawyer on an Italian register
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-                        conditional upon the possession of Italian citizenship,
gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 10 March                        the possession of qualifications acquired only in Italy
1999 in the cases of Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and                               and maintenance of a residence in an Italian judicial
Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Fin-                                district;
               anzlandesdirektion für Kärnten
                                                                           — by applying in a discriminatory manner against lawyers
                       (Case C-143/99)                                          from other Member States the ‘offsetting measures’
                                                                                (aptitude test) provided for in Article 4 of Council
                       (1999/C 188/41)                                          Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988; (1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     — by incompletely transposing Directive 89/48, notwith-
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgericht-                     standing the absence of implementing rules laying
shof (Constitutional Court), Austria, of 10 March 1999, which                   down arrangements for the aptitude test for lawyers
was received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1999, for a                      from other Member States,
preliminary ruling in the cases of Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH
and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Fin-
anzlandesdirektion für Kärnten on the following questions:             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and of Direc-
1. Are legislative measures of a Member State which provide            tive 89/48/EEC;
    for partial reimbursement of energy duties on natural gas
    and electrical energy, but grant that reimbursement only           (b) Order the italian Republic to pay the costs.
    to undertakings whose activity is shown to consist primar-
    ily in the production of tangible assets, to be regarded as
    State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC
    Treaty?                                                            Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is such a
    legislative measure to be regarded as State aid under
    Article 92 of the EC Treaty even if it is granted to all           (a) A lawyer established in another Member State who prac-
    undertakings, regardless of whether their activity is shown            tises law in the exercise of his freedom to provide
    to consist primarily in the production of tangible assets?             services must have an opportunity of access in Italy to
                                                                           an infrastructure enabling him to provide the services
                                                                           requested by his clients. The prohibition in Article 2 of
                                                                           Law No 31/1982, by reason of its absolute and general
                                                                           nature, is therefore incompatible with the principle of the
                                                                           freedom to provide services as laid down and defined in
                                                                           Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty and as interpreted by the
                                                                           Court of Justice, in particular in its judgment in Gebhard (2).
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 (b) The Commission considers that the continuing existence
                                                                           in the Italian legislation governing the professions of a
                       (Case C-145/99)                                     provision like Article 17.1.7, which imposes as a precon-
                                                                           dition for enrolment on the lawyers’ professional register
                                                                           the requirement of residence within the district of the
                       (1999/C 188/42)                                     Court in the area of the local Bar Association, despite the
                                                                           recommendation from the National Bar Association the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the              local Bar Associations in its Opinion of 29 April 1994 that
Court of Justice on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of the                 that provision be disapplied, is precisely the opposite of
European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal                the precise, clear and transparent situations which the
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its legal Service, acting as               Court requires the Member States to provide in order to
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office            enable lawyers to determine the rights conferred on them
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     by Article 52 of the Treaty and to make use of them.
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 188/19
(c) Article 17 of Professional law No 1576 of 1933 has not                The applicant claims that the Court should:
     undergone the slightest amendment, not even by means of
     a reference to the other two measures having force of
     law which are relevant in this area (Legislative Decree              — Annul Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
     No 115/1992 and Law No 149/1994), to make it clear                       1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     that lawyers from other Member States are not subject to                 Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995
     the condition of nationality or that of possession of an                 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
     Italian university degree, or the requirement of having                  Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under
     undertaken legal training in Italy. That lack of care on                 document number C(1999) 209), (1) in so far as, in
     the part of the Italian legislature creates serious legal                determining the total Italian expenditure chargeable to the
     uncertainty for lawyers from other Member States                         Fund, it made certain financial corrections to the detriment
     intending to establish themselves in Italy.                              of Italy.
(d) The Italian State, by requiring lawyers from other Member
     States to have had training comparable to that of an Italian         Pleas in law and main arguments
     graduate in jurisprudence, is abusing the right conferred
     on it by Article 4 of the said Directive 89/48 to make
     recognition of a professional qualification subject to an
     aptitude test. The difficulty of the aptitude test — the latter      A. Public stocks of cereals — Inspections carried out by the
     being far more difficult than the ordinary examination for               UCLAF through an ‘ente assuntore’ — Quantity of wheat
     entitlement to practise as a lawyer — is a manifestation of              in respect of which expenditure was disallowed
     that abusive, and therefore illegal, application of Article 4
     of that directive.
                                                                              As regards the quantity of wheat in respect of which
                                                                              the expenditure was disallowed, the Italian authorities
(e) Despite the fact that Article 9 of Legislative Decree                     challenge in its entirety the sampling procedure for the
     No 115/1992 conferred on the Minister of Justice the                     product for analysis and question whether the alleged
     power to adopt a decree to regulate generally the conduct                quality defects were indeed present from the beginning.
     of the aptitude test, no such decree has yet been issued. It             They also point out that the comparative analysis of the
     follows, first, that Italian law contains no implementing                quantities of durum wheat actually in storage on the date
     provisions, at least as regards lawyers, and, second, that               of each inspection, and the results of the analyses carried
     the transposition of Directive 89/48 is incomplete.                      out — at the same time and on the same samples — by
                                                                              the two laboratories requested to do so disclose that the
                                                                              quantity of wheat unambiguously recognised by both
                                                                              laboratories as falling below the minimum standard
(1) OJ 1989 L 19, of 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                        required for public intervention was less than that alleged
(2) Case C-55/94 [1995] ECR I-4165.
                                                                              by the Commission.
                                                                          B. Consumption aid for olive oil — Failure to revoke approval
                                                                              for the packaging plants in Italy.
                                                                              The Commission had maintained that the date from which
                                                                              withdrawal of recognition should have taken effect was
                                                                              that of each single application contested, rather than that
                                                                              of the report in which the applications themselves were
                                                                              assessed, regarding as unacceptable the aid allocated to the
                                                                              various undertakings immediately following submission of
                                                                              applications (and before the reports).
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The Italian Government argues that, by refusing to take
                                                                              into account the dates of the reports, the Commission in
                                                                              effect refused to acknowledge that before that date — since
                         (Case C-147/99)                                      no withdrawal had been lawfully provided for — all the
                                                                              payments in respect of previous periods had been properly
                                                                              settled and, consequently, must he recognised as chargeable
                         (1999/C 188/43)                                      to the Community budget.
                                                                          C. Ewe/goat premium
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic,                         The Italian Government contests the correction in question
represented by Professor Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent,                     in so far as it has applied a 25% flat-rate adjustment to the
assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an                   Sicily region for the 1993 marketing year and to the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,                     Sicily and Calabria regions for the 1994 marketing year.
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.                                                         Application of that percentage is unlawful in that it was


title: Case F-60/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2011 — Chiavegato v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2011 — Chiavegato v Commission
   (Case F-60/10) (1)

   2011/C 89/54
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.10, p. 28.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2003 in Case T-327/01: Luciano Lavagnoli against Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Delay in drawing up staff report — Action for damages)

text:
C 171/24                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
D. Lopez Garrido, lawyer, with an address for service in                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: M. Gòmez
Leal and J.F. De Wachter) — application for annulment, first,                                          of 7 May 2003
of the decision of 27 June 2001 of the selection board for
Competition PE/90/A not to admit the applicant to that                      in Case T-327/01: Luciano Lavagnoli against Commission
competition and, second, of the notice relating to that                                     of the European Communities ( 1)
competition — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar; has given a               (Officials — Delay in drawing up staff report — Action for
                                                                                damages)
judgment on 22 May 2003 in which it:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/38)
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 3, 5. 1. 2002.                                                    In Case T-327/01: Luciano Lavagnoli, official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Berchem
                                                                            (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
                                                                            lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
                                                                            and L. Lozano Palacios) — application for payment of damages
                                                                            in compensation for non-material damage caused by the delay
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in drawing up a definitive staff report for the period 1 July
                                                                            1997 to 30 June 1999 — the Court of First Instance
                            of 7 May 2003                                   (single judge: Mr Pirrung); J. Palacio González, Principal
                                                                            Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on
                                                                            7 May 2003 in which it:
in Case T-278/01: Eric den Hamer against Commission of
                   the European Communities (1)
                                                                            1.     Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 2 000;
(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action
                             for damages)                                   2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                           (2003/C 171/37)                                  3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)                         (1 ) OJ C 56, 2. 3. 2002.
In Case T-278/01: Eric den Hamer, official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Malines (Belgium),
represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
munities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and A. Dal Ferro) —
application, first, for annulment of the decision adopting the                                        of 20 May 2003
staff report of the applicant for the period 1995-1997 and,
second, for payment of damages in compensation for damage                   in Case T-179/02: Jan Pflugradt against European Central
caused inter alia by the delay in drawing up that report — the                                             Bank (1)
Court of First Instance (single judge: Mr Pirrung); D. Christens-
en, Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on               (Staff of the European Central Bank — Performance
7 May 2003 in which it:                                                                    appraisal — Action for annulment)
1.     Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                                          (2003/C 171/39)
       EUR 3 000;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            In Case T-179/02: Jan Pflugradt, residing in Frankfurt am Main
                                                                            (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, with an address for
( 1) OJ C 3, 5. 1. 2002.                                                    service in Luxembourg, against European Central Bank
                                                                            (Agents: V. Saintot, T. Gilliams and B. Wägenbaur) — appli-
                                                                            cation for annulment of the appraisal of the applicant’s


title: Case C-149/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Leno Merken v Hagelkruis Beheer B.V.

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Leno Merken v Hagelkruis Beheer B.V.
   (Case C-149/11)
   2011/C 179/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te‘s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Leno Merken

      Defendant: Hagelkruis Beheer B.V.

      Question referred

               1.

               Must Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that use of a Community trade mark within the borders of a single Member State is sufficient to constitute genuine use of that trade mark, provided that, had it been a national trade mark, such use would have been regarded as genuine use in that Member State (cf. Joint Statement No 10 regarding Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (2) of 20 December 1993 and the Opposition Guidelines of the OHIM)?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative, can the use of a Community trade mark within a single Member State as described above never be regarded as genuine use in the Community as referred to in Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009?

               3.

               If the use of a Community trade mark within a single Member State can never be regarded as genuine use in the Community, what requirements must be laid down — in addition to the other factors — in respect of the territorial scope of the use of a Community trade mark when assessing genuine use in the Community?

               4.

               Alternatively — contrary to what has been stated above — must Article 15 of the Regulation on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the assessment of genuine use in the Community should be done wholly in the abstract, without reference to the borders of the territory of the individual Member States (and that, for example, market share (product markets/geographic markets) should be taken as the point of reference))?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-179/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/29
Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company                            Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                          Communities
                                                                                (Case T-180/99)
                         (Case T-179/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 281/55)
                         (1999/C 281/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios
                                                                          Tsarnavas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
European Communities on 6 August 1999 by the company
Sud Pesca, represented by Gianfranco Amenta and Massimo
Merola, of the Palermo and Rome Bars, with an address for                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51
Rue Albert 1er.
                                                                          — annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting
                                                                              the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
                                                                              of the Staff Regulations by which he contested first, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   implicit rejection of his request for rectification of his
                                                                              administrative status as regards the date on which the
— annul the contested decision;                                               Commission’s decision concerning his reassignment took
                                                                              effect, and, second, the list of officials promoted to grade
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                        A 4, published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 of
    action, including the applicant’s legal costs.                            30 October 1998, in which his name did not appear;
                                                                          — consequently, order that the 1998 procedure for pro-
                                                                              motion to grade A 4 is to be annulled as regards the
                                                                              applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant contests the decision of 24 April 1999, Ref.
SG(99)D/2842, by which the Commission rejected an appli-
cation for exemption from post-clearance recovery, alterna-               Pleas in law and main arguments
tively, for remission, of customs duties relating to two
consignments of tuna imported from Turkey under IM4
certificates nos 356/N dated 22 June 1994 and 193/U dated                 The applicant, a grade A 5 official of the Commission of the
29 May 1995.                                                              European Communities, was seconded, as Vice-President of
                                                                          the local Staff Committee, from DG IV to the Staff Represen-
                                                                          tation unit attached to DG IX. On 2 July 1997 the Commission
In support of its claim, the applicant argues that the Com-               decided to reassign the applicant to DG IV with retroactive
mission breached and wrongly applied Article 220(2)(b)                    effect from 1 May 1997. That decision was not notified to the
and Article 239 of the Community Customs Code. In this                    applicant until 21 October 1997, on which date he resumed
connection, the applicant is of the view that the Turkish                 his duties in DG IV. On 30 October 1998 the administration
authorities, even after the checks carried out by the Community           published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 the list of
delegation in June 1996, confirmed the validity of the ATR.1              officials promoted to grade A 4, in which the applicant’s name
certificates issued. Even if it were possible that those authorities      did not appear.
issued the certificates of origin in error, such an error could be
characterised as being a ‘substantive error’.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
                                                                          following pleas:
The applicant maintains, inter alia, that there is in the present
                                                                          — absence of a statement of reasons;
case a ‘special situation’ and that no fraud or obvious
negligence can be imputed to it.
                                                                          — delay on the part of the Commission in sending to the
                                                                              applicant the decision concerning his reassignment;
                                                                          — breach of the principle of non-retroactivity and misuse of
                                                                              powers;


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/8

         Action brought on 16 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-30/15)
   (2016/C 216/05)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Clémence Perrin and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 14 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 14 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products, as referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-113/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
      (Case C-113/16)
      (2016/C 211/30)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Günter Horváth

         Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings create a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?

                  2.

                  Having regard to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are nationals of the Member State concerned affected to the same extent as nationals of the other Member States by legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?


title: Case C-515/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Enedis, SA v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — State aid — Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ — Solar power — Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price — Compensation in full — No prior notification)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/19

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Enedis, SA v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
   (Case C-515/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ - Solar power - Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price - Compensation in full - No prior notification))
   (2017/C 168/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enedis, SA

      Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an obligation, such as that introduced by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to purchase electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price and that is financed by all final consumers of electricity must be regarded as intervention by the State or through State resources.

               2)

               Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a national measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU has not been notified to the European Commission in advance, it is for the national courts to draw all the inferences of that unlawfulness, in particular as regards the validity of the measures implementing that measure.

      (1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.


title: Case T-512/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — AN v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations — Failure to adjudicate — Distortion of facts)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — AN v Commission

   (Case T-512/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations - Failure to adjudicate - Distortion of facts))
   (2015/C 046/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: AN (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013, in AN v Commission (F-111/10, ECR — Staff Cases, EU:F:2013:114) and seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber), in AN v Commission (F 111/10, ECR — Staff Cases, EU:F:2013:114), in so far as it failed to adjudicate on the plea in law alleging the irregularity of the investigation with the reference CMS 07/041;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Rejects the action brought by AN before the Civil Service Tribunal in in Case F-111/10;

               4.

               Orders AN to bear her own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission relating both to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the present proceedings;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs relating both to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-395/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 27 August 2012 — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Edenred Luxembourg SA

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 27 August 2012 — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Edenred Luxembourg SA
   (Case C-395/12)
   2012/C 366/42
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines

      Defendant: Edenred Luxembourg SA

      Question referred

   Are services carried out by an organisation issuing luncheon vouchers in Luxembourg for a restaurateur who is a member of its acceptance network exempt, either in full or in part, from VAT pursuant to Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended, if a luncheon voucher is not a fully-fledged financial security and those services are not intended to guarantee payment for a meal purchased by an employee of the business customer (ibid. Article 13B(d)(2)), in the case of luncheon vouchers allocated by an employer to its employees under the State legislation …, given that membership of a luncheon vouchers network allows a member to profit from the custom of employees of the business customers of the luncheon voucher operator and that that operator is paying the processing costs for those luncheon vouchers?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.