title: Case C-385/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France)) — Confédération générale du travail, CFDT — Confédération française démocratique du travail, Confédération française de l'encadrement (CGC), Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens (CFTC), Confédération générale du travail — Force ouvrière v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement (Social policy — Directives 98/59/EC and 2002/14/EC — Collective redundancies — Information and consultation of employees — Method for calculating the thresholds of workers employed — Member States' powers — Exclusion of employees belonging to a certain age group)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France)) — Confédération générale du travail, CFDT — Confédération française démocratique du travail, Confédération française de l'encadrement (CGC), Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens (CFTC), Confédération générale du travail — Force ouvrière v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement
   (Case C-385/05) (1)

   (Social policy - Directives 98/59/EC and 2002/14/EC - Collective redundancies - Information and consultation of employees - Method for calculating the thresholds of workers employed - Member States' powers - Exclusion of employees belonging to a certain age group)
   (2007/C 56/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confédération générale du travail, CFDT — Confédération française démocratique du travail, Confédération française de l'encadrement (CGC), Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens (CFTC), Confédération générale du travail — Force ouvrière

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29), and of Article 1 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Obligation on undertakings to inform and consult employees where the number of their employees exceeds a certain threshold — National legislation excluding from the calculation of staff numbers employees aged under 26
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes, even temporarily, a specific category of workers from the calculation of staff numbers within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes, even temporarily, a specific category of workers from the calculation of staff numbers set out in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case C-168/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) lodged on  29 March 2006  — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi (Regional Administrative Court, Łódź) lodged on 29 March 2006 — Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-168/06)
   (2006/C 143/44)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Łodzi
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ceramika Paradyż sp.z oo

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (1), in conjunction with Articles 2, 10(1)(a) and 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), rule out the possibility of Member States imposing an obligation on a taxable person for VAT purposes to pay an additional tax liability equivalent to 30 % of the amount of the understatement of tax liability or 30 % of the amount of the overstatement by the taxable person in respect of the tax difference to be repaid or the input tax to be repaid or of the overstatement of the excess of the input tax over that due, to be carried over to the following accounting period, in the event that it is established that the taxable person for VAT purposes:

                           (a)

                           indicated in the tax declaration submitted an amount of tax liability which is less than the amount due, or

                           (b)

                           indicated in the tax declaration an amount of the tax difference to be repaid or the input tax to be repaid which is greater than the amount due, or

                           (c)

                           indicated in the tax declaration a difference between the amount of input tax and the amount of tax due, to be carried over to the following month, or

                           (d)

                           included in the tax declaration and received an amount of tax difference to be repaid or an amount of input tax to be repaid and should have indicated the amount of tax liability to be paid to the tax office, or

                           (e)

                           failed to submit a tax declaration or to pay the amount of the tax liability?

               2.

               Can ‘special measures’ within the terms of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Council Directive consist, having regard to their character and purpose, in the possibility of imposing on a taxable person for VAT purposes an additional tax liability fixed by a decision of the tax authority where it is objectively established that the taxable person has declared an understated amount of tax liability or an overstated amount of the tax difference to be repaid or an overstated amount of input tax to be repaid?

      (1)  OJ 71, 14.4.1967, p. 1301.

      (2)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Case T-51/99: Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Sophia Fantechi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 136/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.5.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Sophia Fantechi
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul Article 2(a) of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of
     18 November 1998 to the extent to which it prohibits the                                      (Case T-51/99)
     despatch from Portugal to the Kingdom of Spain and the
     French republic of fighting bulls (‘toiros de raça brava de                                  (1999/C 136/36)
     lide’) intended for cultural and sporting events within the
     meaning of Council regulation No 820/97 which are held
     in those member States;                                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— Order the Commission to pay the cost in their entirety.                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 February 1999 by Sophia
                                                                         Fantechi, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Eric
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
The applicant seek the annulment of Commission Decision
98/653/EC of 18 November 1998 concerning emergency                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongi-
form encephalopathy (BSE ) in Portugal (1). Articles 2 and 4 of          — annul the defendant’s decision of 7 July 1998, in the form
that decision prohibit Portugal from exporting from its                       of a note drawn up by J. Schuijt and signed by him
territory bovine animals and products made from them. These                   on behalf of the head of the unit responsible for the
proceedings are directed specifically against the prohibition of              administration of individual rights, bearing reference num-
exporting live bovine animals to the extent to which that                     ber 982902, by which the applicant was refused the 16 %
prohibition applies to fighting bulls for export to Spain and                 expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex
France.                                                                       VII to the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — annul the implicit decision rejecting her complaint, the
According to the decision, those measures are required                        said rejection being deemed, in the absence of any express
because, as a result of deficiencies existing until very recently in          reply thereto within the period of 4 months prescribed by
the implementation of Community legislation on identification                 the Staff Regulations, to have occurred on 23 November
and registration of animals, and of measures on transmissible                 1998;
spongiform encephalopathy surveillance and BSE eradication,
no adequate guarantees can be provided regarding the BSE                 — order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
history of the herds of origin and herds through which bovine                 the applicant with effect from 1 May 1998, subject to
animals pass and regarding the dams of bovine animals.                        deduction therefrom, in respect of the past, of such sums
                                                                              as have been paid to her by way of foreign residence
                                                                              allowance as at the date on which judgement is delivered
The following pleas in law are forward:                                       herein, together with default interest at the rate of 8 % per
                                                                              annum calculated from the date on which each of the
                                                                              sums due became respectively payable until the date of
— Error concerning circumstances alleged and breach of the                    actual payment;
    duty to state reasons, in that the measures adopted by the
    Commission are based on the alleged detection of an                  — order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
    increasing number of cases of BSE, associated with
    deficiencies affecting surveillance, with consequent risks of
    propagation of the disease. According to the applicants,             Pleas in law and main arguments
    those circumstances do not affect fighting bulls.
                                                                         The applicant states that the administration decided not to
                                                                         grant her the expatriation allowance, taking the view that the
— Infringement of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty in             period during which she had worked for the Joint European
    so far as the measures at issue place unjustified obstacles          Torus and the Joint research Centre, Ispra, should not be taken
    in the way of intra-Community trade.                                 into consideration for the purposes of calculating the reference
                                                                         period provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff
— Breach of the principle of proportionality since fighting              Regulations, with the consequence that, as at the date resulting
    bulls are a breed from BSE and that breed is subject                 from the ‘corrected’ reference period, the applicant was
    to particularly rigorous controls both in Spain and in               residing in Belgium. The applicant claims that, in adopting
    Portugal.                                                            that decision, the defendant misapplied and misinterpreted
                                                                         Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, inasmuch
                                                                         as it based its decision on incorrect reasoning, both as to the
                                                                         facts and as to the law. She also considers that she has been
(1) OJ L 311, 20.11.1998, p. 23.                                         discriminated against by comparison with other officials in the
                                                                         same situation who have nevertheless received the expatriation
                                                                         allowance.


22.1.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/29
       Removal from the register of Case T-201/98 (1)                    the register of Case T-98/99, UPS Europe NV/SA v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
                        (2000/C 20/64)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-201/98, Rumpstad ATM B.V. v Commission of the
European Communities.                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-107/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                        (2000/C 20/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Second
       Removal from the register of Case T-76/99 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                        (2000/C 20/65)                                   Case T-107/99, Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo v Council of
                                                                         the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
By order of 18 November 1999, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-76/99: Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-117/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/68)
       Removal from the register of Case T-98/99 (1)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                        (2000/C 20/66)                                   By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                  (Language of the case: English)                        of Case T-117/99, Natalia Martinez Paramo and Others v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.
By order of 29 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


C 352/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-392/93 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-203/94 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/66)                                                         (1999/C 352/69)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
the register of Case T-392/93: Greg Walsh v Council of the              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
European Union and Commission of the European Communi-                  the register of Case T-203/94: Hans-Hermann Blohm and
ties.                                                                   Others v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 197 of 21.7.1993.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 218 of 68.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-81/94
                         and Others (1)
                       (1999/C 352/67)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-225/94 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/70)
                  (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of
Cases T-81/94, T-114/94, T-135/94, T-200/94, T-204/94,                  By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-205/94, T-206/94, T-207/94, T-208/94, T-209/94,                       Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
T-210/94, T-211/94, T-213/94, T-214/94, T-215/94,                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
T-216/94, T-217/94, T-218/94, T-220/94, T-221/94,                       the register of Case T-225/94: Georg Hofstetter v Commission
T-222/94, T-223/94, T-254/94, T-255/94, T-256/94,                       of the European Communities.
T-257/94, T-258/94, T-269/94, T-287/94, T-288/94 and
T-296/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-81/94 and Others:
Anni Rau and Others v Council of the European Union and                 (1) OJ C 233 of 20.8.1994.
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 218 of 6.8.1994,
    C 275 of 1.10.1994 and C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-270/94 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-89/94 (1)                                           (1999/C 352/71)
                       (1999/C 352/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the register of Case T-270/94: Claus-Heinrich Röhe v Council
the register of Case T-89/94: Hubert Remmers v Council                  of the European Union and Commission of the European
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Communities.
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994.


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.


title: Case C-432/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 26 August 2010 — Ministerie van Financiën and Openbaar Ministerie v Aboulkacem Chihabi and Others

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 26 August 2010 — Ministerie van Financiën and Openbaar Ministerie v Aboulkacem Chihabi and Others
   (Case C-432/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministerie van Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendants: Aboulkacem Chihabi and Others

      Questions referred

               (a)

               In relation to Article 221 of the Community Customs Code

                           1.

                           Are Article 221(1) and Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, (1) as applicable prior to amendment by Article 1(17) of Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a document which communicates the amount of duty and which is notified to the debtor by the customs authorities may be regarded as the communication of the amount of duty to the debtor referred to in Article 221(1) and Article 221(3) of the Customs Code only if the amount of duty has been entered in the accounts by the customs authorities (that is to say, has been recorded in the accounts or any other medium performing the same function) prior to notification to the debtor by means of the aforementioned document?

                           2.

                           Does an infringement of Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (Regulation No 2913/92), which provides that the entry of a customs debt in the accounts must precede communication of that debt — in the sense that it is clear that communication of the customs debt (2 July 2004) occurred before the debt was entered in the accounts (second quarter of 2005) — lead to the lapse of the right to post-clearance recovery on the part of the Administration?

                           3.

                           Is Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that there can be no legally valid communication of a customs debt to a putative debtor if no evidence can be produced of prior entry of the customs debt in the accounts?

                           4.

                           Is any communication of a customs debt to the debtor as referred to in Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 that is not preceded by the prior entry of the customs debt in the accounts to be regarded as an invalid or non-existent communication precluding recovery of the customs debt by the customs authorities unless, following the entry of the customs debt in the accounts, there is a new communication within the period prescribed for that purpose?

               (b)

               In relation to Article 202 of the Community Customs Code

                           1.

                           Is Article 202(1)(a) of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods liable to import duties is unlawful solely because those goods are incorrectly designated in the summary declaration provided for in Article 43 of the Customs Code, notwithstanding the fact that:

                                       the second subparagraph of Article 202(1) of the Customs Code refers only to Articles 38 to 41 and the second indent of Article 177 of the Customs Code, and not to Article 43 thereof;

                                       the responsibility for the accuracy of the information given in the declaration that is provided for in Article 199(1) of implementing Regulation No 2454/93 relates only to the customs declaration and not to the summary declaration;

                                       it is impossible, both in practical and in legal terms, for the person who has to make the summary declaration to verify which goods are in the containers?

                           2.

                           If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is Article 202(3) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a person (the shipping agent) who lodges a summary declaration in the name of and on behalf of his principal (the shipowner) is regarded as a ‘person who introduced such goods unlawfully’ within the meaning of the first indent of that provision merely on account of the fact that the summary declaration contains an incorrect designation?

                           3.

                           If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is Article 202(3) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that that provision precludes a national provision, such as Article 24.2 of the Belgian General Law on Customs and Excise Duty (‘A.W.D.A.’), (3) according to which a person who has lodged a summary declaration in the name of and on behalf of another is automatically deemed to be the debtor of the customs debt and is not given the opportunity to show that he did not participate in the unlawful introduction of the goods and did not know or could not reasonably have known that they were being introduced unlawfully?

                           4.

                           Is Article 5 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that that provision precludes a national provision, such as Article 24.2 A.W.D.A., which prevents the use of direct representation, that is to say, representation by a person acting in the name of and on behalf of the principal, because that person is automatically deemed to be responsible for the customs debt in the event that a summary declaration contains an incorrect designation?

                           5.

                           Where a summary declaration is lodged in which the goods being introduced are designated incorrectly, giving rise to a customs debt under Article 202(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, must the person who drew up and signed the summary declaration, whether as the direct or indirect representative of the person who introduced the goods into the customs territory of the Community, be regarded as having caused the unlawful introduction of the goods and thus be deemed to be the debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 where that person has, for the purposes of lodging the summary declaration, relied exclusively on the information provided to him by the captain of the ship by which the goods were introduced into the Community and it was, in practice, impossible — in view of the large quantity of containers on board to be unloaded in the port of entry — for him to check whether the contents of the containers presented to the customs authorities were actually consistent with the documents provided and on the basis of which the summary declaration was drawn up?

                           6.

                           Are the captain of the ship and the shipping company which he represents to be regarded as having caused the unlawful introduction of goods into the Community and, consequently, as the customs debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 where, on the basis of the information provided by the captain, a summary declaration is lodged by his representative in which the goods introduced are designated incorrectly, giving rise to a customs debt under Article 202(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 on account of the unlawful introduction of goods into the Community?

                           7.

                           In the event that the answer(s) to questions 5 and/or 6 is/are in the negative, can the persons referred to in questions 5 and/or 6 be regarded, in the circumstances, as customs debtors within the meaning of the second indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

      (3)  Algemene Wet inzake Douane en Accijnzen


title: Case T-61/16: Action brought on 12 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v EUIPO — Mitico (Master)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/38

         Action brought on 12 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v EUIPO — Mitico (Master)
   (Case T-61/16)
   (2016/C 111/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz and S. Baran, Barristers; D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Master’ — Application for registration No 9 091 612

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2015 in Case R 1251/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the EU trade mark Applicant to bear their own costs and pay those costs of the Applicant for Annulment at every stage of the opposition and appeal process, including the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-664/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd
   (Case C-664/15)
   (2016/C 111/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation

      Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (‘the Water Framework Directive’) or the Water Framework Directive as a whole confer on an environmental organisation, in a procedure which is not subject to an environmental impact assessment under Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (‘the EIA Directive’), rights for the protection of which it has access to administrative or judicial procedures under Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2015 (‘the Aarhus Convention’)?
               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is it necessary under the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to be able to assert those rights at the stage of the procedure before the administrative authority or is the possibility of being granted judicial protection against the decision of the administrative authority sufficient?

               3.

               Is it permissible for national procedural law (Paragraph 42 of the AVG) to require the environmental organisation — like other parties — to raise its objections not only in an appeal to the Verwaltungsgericht, but in good time at the stage of the procedure before the administrative authorities, failing which it loses its status as a party and is also no longer able to bring an appeal at the Verwaltungsgericht?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 4 February 1997 in Joined Cases C-71/95, C-155/95 and C-271/95: Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic (Bananas - Common organization of the markets - Import quota - Accession of new Member States - Transitional measures)

text:
5 . 4 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 108/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     arrangements for the import of bananas as a result of
                                                                          the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden for the
                      of 4 February 1997
                                                                          second quarter of 1995 ( OJ No L 49, 4 . 3 . 1995 ,
in Joined Cases C-71/95 , C-155/95 and C-271/95 :                         P- 18 ),
Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission of the European
     Communities, supported by the French Republic ( l )
                                                                      — in Case C-271 /95 , Commission Regulation ( EC )
(Bananas — Common organization of the markets —                           No 1219/95 of 30 May 1995 adopting transitional
Import quota — Accession of new Member States —                           measures for the application of the tariff quota
                     Transitional measures)                               arrangements for imports of bananas for the third
                         ( 97/C 108/01 )
                                                                          quarter of 1995 as a result of the accession of Austria,
                                                                          Finland and Sweden ( OJ No L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                          p. 20 ),
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                      President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                      ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray ( Presidents of Chambers ),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
                                                                      M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Joined Cases C-71 /95 , C-155/95 and C-271 /95 :                   judgment on 4 February 1997, in which it:
Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder) v. Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn ),
supported in Cases C-71/95 and C-155/95 by the French                 1 . dismisses the applications;
Republic ( Agents : C. de Salins and F. Pascal ) —
application for the annulment of:
                                                                      2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs;
— in Case C-71 /95 , Commission Regulation ( EC )
      No 3303/94 of 21 December 1994 introducing                      3 . orders the French Republic, which intervened, to bear
      transitional measures for imports of bananas into                    its own costs .
      Austria, Finland and Sweden in the first quarter of
       1995 ( OJ No L 341 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p. 46 ),
                                                                      (') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                          OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                          OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995
— in Case C-155/95, Commission Regulation ( EC )
       No 479/95 of 1 March 1995 introducing transitional
       measures for the application of the tariff quota


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 8 January 2002 in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Company (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit — Prohibition on placing that substance on the market — Rejection of the application for inclusion)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 84/5
1.    Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      81 EC) do not preclude national legislation which, in the                    European Communities of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97
      context of a summary procedure for the recovery of debts relating            Monsanto v Commission;
      to the fees of an architect, a member of a professional
      association, requires the court seised of the dispute to follow the    2.    Dismisses the application for annulment of Decision C(97)
      opinion of that association in relation to the settlement of those           148 final of the Commission of 14 January 1997 concerning
      fees in so far as that opinion ceases to be binding where the                the definition of a position, in accordance with Article 175 of
      debtor initiates proceedings inter partes.                                   the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine somatotrophin in
                                                                                Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90;
2.    Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty do not preclude national
      legislation which provides that the members of a profession may        3.    Orders Monsanto Company to bear its own costs and to
      set at their discretion the fees for certain services which they             pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European
      perform.                                                                     Communities both before the Court of First Instance and the
                                                                                Court of Justice;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                   4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred both
                                                                                before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           8 January 2002                                                              5 February 2002
                                                                             in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Com-                                   the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (1)
                                pany (1)
                                                                             (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to                       benefits’ — Payment of advances on maintenance payments
include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the                      — Condition that the minor child must be resident within
list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —                     the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)
Prohibition on placing that substance on the market —
            Rejection of the application for inclusion)                                                 (2002/C 84/09)
                            (2002/C 84/08)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-255/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court concerning the
In Case C-248/99 P, French Republic (agents: initially                       minor Anna Humer, on the interpretation of Articles 3, 4(1)(h),
R. Abraham and J.-F. Dobelle and K. Rispal-Bellanger and                     73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Vasak, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues): Appeal against                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
Communities (Second Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in                             of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 3(1)
the proceedings being: Monsanto Company, registered in                       and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (United                    15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
States of America), (agents: C. Stanbrook, QC, and D. Holland,               within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
barrister), and Commission of the European Communities                       p. 475), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
(agents: J.-L. Dewost, R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou) the                and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, F. Macken
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet                  D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet,
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,                   R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on                S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
8 January 2002, in which it:                                                 given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case F-35/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 October 2006 — Grunheid v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 October 2006 — Grunheid v Commission
   (Case F-35/06) (1)

   (2006/C 281/90)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.06.2006.


title: Case T-452/07: Order of the General Court of 18 June 2010 — Ecolean Research & Development v OHIM (CAPS)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/58

         Order of the General Court of 18 June 2010 — Ecolean Research & Development v OHIM (CAPS)
   (Case T-452/07) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 221/92
   Language of the case: Swedish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Action brought on 4 May 1998 by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case C-168/98)

text:
C 209/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel (Criminal Court),              Are Council Directives 92/83 (1) and 92/84 (2) on the
Arlon, of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on           harmonisation of excise duties invalid from the point of
29 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of              view of the EC Treaty and in particular the second
MinisteÁre Public (Public Prosecutor's Office) against AndreÂ       paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty, in that they
Mazzoleni Ð parties claiming damages: Eric Guillaume,
Michel Pedon, Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin,                 Ð fix a minimum rate of tax on beer of ECU 1.87 per
JeÂrôme Canini; liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance              degree per hectolitre
Assistance SARL Ð on the following questions:
                                                                    Ð whereas they authorise taxation of wine by reference
Ð In Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and                  solely to the volume, with a minimum rate of zero,
     of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the
     posting of workers in the framework of the provision           thus requiring Member States to raise the tax on beer to
     of services (1), does the term period of posting'             the said minimum rate and so bringing about the creation
     encompass the part-time period spent, whether                  of tax differentials liable to discriminate between wine and
     randomly or not, by a frontier-zone worker who                 beer?
     comes from an undertaking in a Member State,
     performing, in the course of days, weeks or a month, a         (1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
     part of his services in the adjacent territory or              (2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.
     territories of one or more other Member States?
Ð Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be
     interpreted as being infringed where a Member State,
     for overriding reasons relating to the public interest,
     requires any undertaking from another Member State             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste
     employing persons, even temporarily, on the territory          Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 15 April
     of the first State to comply with its legislation or           1998 in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
     collective labour agreements relating to minimum               Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as
     wages, where that interest is already protected by the         administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Baupro-
     rules of the State in which the service provider is            jektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency
     established and workers there are already in a                             proceedings concerning that company
     comparable or similar position on the basis not solely
                                                                                (Case C-167/98)
     of the legislation relating to minimum wages but of
     the overall position (impact of taxation, welfare                                       (98/C 209/49)
     protection in relation to illness, including under the
     obligatory supplementary insurance which applies in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     France, and to industrial accidents, widowhood,                European Communities by order of the Oberste
     unemployment, retirement and death)?                           Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Vienna, of 15 April 1998,
                                                                    received at the Court Registry on 30 April 1998, for a
Ð In the same context, put differently: are the temporary
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
     national obligations set for employees to be
                                                                    Girozentrale against Johannes Leon, acting as
     understood as solely the minimum hourly rate of pay
                                                                    administrator of the assets of Grundstücks- und Baupro-
     without assessing the overall position as regards the
                                                                    jektentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH in the insolvency
     welfare protection enjoyed by employees who are
                                                                    proceedings concerning that company, on the following
     required in their work to move from one State to
                                                                    question:
     another?
                                                                    Does the refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to
(1) OJ L 18, 24.1.1997, p. 1.
                                                                    cover an existing foreign-currency debt (in this case in
                                                                    German marks (DM)) constitute a restriction on the
                                                                    movement of capital and payments compatible with
                                                                    Article 73(b) of the EC Treaty?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance, Foix, by judgment of that court of
21 April 1998 in the case of SocieÂteÂ Critouridienne de
       Distribution v. Receveur Principal des Douanes
                                                                    Action brought on 4 May 1998 by the Grand Duchy of
                        (Case C-166/98)
                                                                    Luxembourg against the European Parliament and the
                         (98/C 209/48)                                             Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-168/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                                        (98/C 209/50)
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Foix (France), of
21 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry             An action against the European Parliament and the
on 29 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           Council of the European Union was brought before the
SocieÂteÂ Critouridienne de Distribution v. Receveur                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May
Principal des Douanes on the following question:                    1998 by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 209/25
Nicolas Schmit, Conseiler d'EÂtat, Director of International             Ð liberalises group practice, and also does so in
Economic Relations and Cooperation, acting as Agent,                         countries which did not authorise that form of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Ministry                    practice and that means of access, namely Italy
of Foreign Affairs, 6 Rue de la CongreÂgation.                               and Greece;
                                                                         Ð removes the obligation on migrants to acquire
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg claims that the Court                          knowledge of the law of the host country.
should:
                                                                   Ð     Infringement of the duty to state reasons: The
(a) annul Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament                   contested directive offers no justification for the
     and of the Council (1) in its entirety, particularly                choice made by the Community legislature in placing
     Articles 2, 5 and 10 thereof, for infringement of the               on the same level, from the point of view of
     Treaty, omission of one of the required legal bases                 establishment, migrant lawyers practising under their
     and failure to state reasons,                                       original title and those opting for integration and to
                                                                         use the title of the host State. The third, fifth, ninth
                                                                         and tenth recitals are not a sufficient statement of
(b) order the defendants to pay the costs.                               reasons in that respect.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                (2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.
Ð    Infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty: By not
     imposing any requirement for even the most minimal
     training in the law of the host State, Directive 98/5/
     EC establishes an unwarranted difference in
     treatment between nationals and migrants which                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel
     cannot be justified under Article 52 of the Treaty. In        Bruxelles (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of that court of
     reality, the contested directive extends to the system        30 April 1998 in the case of Sebago Inc. and S.A.
     of establishment the advantages enjoyed by providers             Ancienne Maison Dubois et Fils against S.A. G-B Unic
     of services' within the meaning of Article 59 of the                                (Case C-173/98)
     Treaty, which are by definition temporary. Such an
     extension constitutes a distortion of the freedom of                                   (98/C 209/51)
     establishment.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð    Infringement of the second sentence of Article 57(2)          European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
     of the EC Treaty: That sentence imposes the                   de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 30 April 1998,
     requirement of unanimity where harmonisation                  received at the Court Registry on 11 May 1998, in the
     amends the existing principles laid down by law               case of Sebago Inc. and S.A. Ancienne Maison Dubois et
     governing training and the conditions of access for           Fils against S.A. G-B Unic, for a preliminary ruling on the
     natural persons to the professions. The contested             following questions:
     directive seriously affects such principles in the great
     majority of Member States. It removes the need for a          Is Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
     migrant lawyer to be qualified, even minimally, in the        of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
     purely national law of the host State and introduces          Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40 of
     an inordinate derogation from a legislative principle         11.2.1989, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that the
     fundamental to the legal profession, common to all            right conferred by the trade mark entitles its proprietor to
     the Member States, whereby the profession is to be            oppose the use of his trade mark in relation to authentic
     one in which access is reserved for persons duly              goods which have not been put on the market in the
     qualified in national law, or the equivalence of whose        European Economic Community (extended to Norway,
     qualifications has been recognised, with, where               Iceland and Liechtenstein by virtue of the Agreement of
     appropriate, proof of the acquisition of missing              2 May 1992 establishing the European Economic Area) by
     knowledge by means of the test provided for by                the proprietor or with his consent, where:
     Council Directive 89/48/EEC (2).
                                                                   Ð the goods bearing the trade mark come directly from a
     Moreover, the contested directive distorts the                    country outside the European Community or the
     conditions for access of natural persons, in that it:             European Economic Area,
     Ð authorises full practice of such persons in an              Ð the goods bearing the trade mark come from a
         established capacity under the home-country                   Member State of the European Community or the
         professional    title, which      was     previously          European Economic Area in which they are in transit
         impossible in the great majority of Member                    without the consent of the proprietor of the trade
         States;                                                       mark or his representative,


4.5.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 109/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/01 (1)                ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds (United Kingdom)):
                                                                     P. Breckon and M. Barrett v Secretary of State for Employment.
                        (2002/C 109/78)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
By order of 17 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/01: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-183/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/81)
                                                                     By order of 8 January 2002 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case    C-127/01 (1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-183/01: Commission of the
                        (2002/C 109/79)                              European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
By order of 30 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-127/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-382/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/82)
       Removal from the register of Case C-137/01 (1)                By order of 6 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2002/C 109/80)                              from the register of Case C-382/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland.
By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-137/01 (Reference for a preliminary      (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-281/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Andrew Owusu against 1) N. B. Jackson (trading as Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas), 2) Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, 3) Mammee Bay Club Ltd, 4) The Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, 5) Consulting Services Ltd, 6) Town & Country Resorts Ltd

text:
C 233/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Action brought on 25 July 2002 by the Commission of                      make good that failure. A Member State may not rely on
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal
                                                                         legal order to justify its failure to comply with obligations laid
                                                                         down by Community law. Under no circumstances may it
                          (Case C-274/02)                                make its compliance with the judgment subject to any
                                                                         conditions whatsoever. The task given to the AFSSA by the
                                                                         French Government’s new referral, namely a study whether
                          (2002/C 233/25)                                ‘DBES’ products and French products are comparable, amounts
                                                                         to casting doubt on the primacy of Community law. The
                                                                         argument based on the alleged complexity of the judgment of
                                                                         13 December 2001 cannot in any circumstance justify any
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             delay in compliance; moreover, the operative part of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July                  judgment is very clear, namely that the French Republic is
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      required to permit the marketing of correctly marked or
represented by D. Booss and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents,              labelled ‘DBES’ products in its territory.
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         In the alternative: it is not open to a Member State to rely
                                                                         upon the illegality of decisions addressed to it as a defence to
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         an action for failure to fulfil its obligations based on its failure
the Court should:
                                                                         to comply with those decisions, either in proceedings under
                                                                         Article 226 EC, or, a fortiori, in proceedings under Article 228
—     declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to         EC.
      comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the
      European Communities of 13 December 2001 in Case
      C-1/00 (1), that the French Republic, by refusing to adopt         So far as the amount of the penalty payment is concerned, the
      the measures necessary to comply with Council Decision             Commission refers to its information notices of 21 August
      98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 concerning emergency                    1996 (5) and 28 February 1997 ( 6) and applies to the basic
      measures to protect against bovine spongiform encepha-             amount of EUR 500 a factor of 15 (maximum possible: 20)
      lopathy, amending Decision 94/474/EC and repealing                 for the seriousness of the infringement, a factor of 1 (maximum
      Decision 96/239/EC ( 2), in the version resulting from             possible: 3) for its duration, and a factor of 21,1 for France’s
      Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 November                       ability to pay.
      1998 ( 3), in particular with Article 6 and Annex III, and
      Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 (4)
      setting the date on which dispatch from the United                 (1 ) [2001] ECR I-9989.
      Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export             (2 ) OJ L 113, 15.4.1998, p. 33.
      scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of                   (3 ) OJ L 328, 4.12.1998, p. 35.
      Decision 98/256, in particular with Article 1, in particu-         (4 ) OJ L 195, 28.7.1999, p. 42.
      lar, by refusing to permit the marketing in its territory          (5 ) OJ C 242, p. 6.
      after 30 December 1999 of products subject to that                 (6 ) OJ C 63, p. 2.
      scheme which are correctly marked or labelled, was in
      breach of its obligations under those two decisions, in
      particular their provisions referred to above, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 228 of the Treaty establishing the European
      Community,
—     order the French Republic to pay into the Commission’s             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
      ‘own resources of the EC’ account, a penalty payment of            (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
      EUR 158 250 per day, for each day’s delay in taking the            dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Andrew Owusu against
      measures necessary to comply with the judgment given               1) N. B. Jackson (trading as Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas),
      by the Court of Justice in Case C-1/00, calculated from            2) Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, 3) Mammee Bay Club Ltd,
      the date of delivery of that judgment,                             4) The Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, 5) Consulting
                                                                                Services Ltd, 6) Town & Country Resorts Ltd
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-281/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The simple fact that the Court has found that a Member State             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
has failed to fulfil its obligations obliges the Member State to         European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 233/17
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) dated 5 July 2002, which             Pleas in law and main arguments
was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrew Owusu and
1) N. B. Jackson (trading as Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas),
2) Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, 3) Mammee Bay Club Ltd, 4) The               The Italian Government claims that, by adopting the contested
Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, 5) Consulting Services              implementing regulation, the Commission has, de iure,
Ltd, 6) Town & Country Resorts Ltd, on the following                    accorded limited and inconsistent protection to ‘traditional
questions:                                                              terms’, in particular to Italian ‘traditional terms’, contrary to
                                                                        the guiding principles of the rules in the sector, as clarified in
                                                                        the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (2).
(1) Is it inconsistent with the Brussels Convention on Jurisdic-        This has not only prejudiced the efforts directed towards the
      tion and the Enforcement of Judgments 1968, where a               reclassification of Community produce, but also the interests
      Claimant contends that jurisdiction is founded on                 of producers and consumers, as recognised by the Treaty, the
      Article 2, for a court of a Contracting State to exercise a       protection of which constitutes the purpose of the common
      discretionary power, available under its national law, to         agricultural policy and of free competition.
      decline to hear proceedings brought against a person
      domiciled in that State in favour of the courts of a non-
      Contracting State:                                                (1 ) OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002
                                                                             of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, desig-
      (a)  if the jurisdiction of no other Contracting State                 nation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector prod-
           under the 1968 Convention is in issue;                            ucts (OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1).
                                                                        (2 ) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of
                                                                             17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine.
      (b) if the proceedings have no other connecting factors
           to any other Contracting State?
(2) If the answer to question (1)(a) or (1)(b) is yes, is it
      consistent in all the circumstances or only in some and if
      so in which?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic                                            (Case C-287/02)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 233/28)
                         (Case C-283/02)
                         (2002/C 233/27)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 9 August 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        represented by Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, Abogada del Estado,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            Embassy, 4 - 6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
Communities on 25 July 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent and M. Fiorilli,
avvocato dello Stato.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      annul the contested decision (1) as regards the financial
                                                                               corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
                                                                               contested by this action;
—     annul Article 24 and, to the extent of the complaints
      advanced to that effect, Annexes A and B of Commission
      Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 ( 1) of 29 April 2002.                —      order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2000 in Case C-42/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): Fábrica de Queĳo Eru Portuguesa Ld.a v Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de Segunda Instância (Free movement of goods — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff heading — Cheese or casein — Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88)

text:
C 335/10                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
The principle of equal treatment, as laid down in Article 3(1) of          The Combined Nomenclature as set out in Annex 1 of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on              Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 amending
the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-   Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
employed persons and to members of their families moving within            statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff is to be
the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No                   interpreted as meaning that a product made by adding rennet to
1945/93 of 30 June 1993, precludes national legislation which              skimmed milk and made up of 54 % water, 0,9 % fat, 5,7 %
fixes the minimum amount of a cash benefit that can be paid to a           phosphorous and 2 % salt and casein must be classified under tariff
Community national residing in another Member State at a higher            subheading 0406 90 11‘Other cheese: — For processing’.
level than that required where that payment is made within the same
Member State, in circumstances where the payment to be sent to
another Member State does not involve expenses higher than those           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
incurred in respect of the payment of the same benefit within the first
Member State.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                 in Case C-205/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                      of 26 September 2000
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
in Case C-42/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   93/89/EEC — Tolls — Brenner motorway — Prohibition of
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): Fábrica                   discrimination — Obligation to set toll rates by reference to
de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld.a v Tribunal Técnico                                  the costs of the infrastructure network concerned)
              Aduaneiro de Segunda Instância (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/19)
(Free movement of goods — Common Customs Tariff —
Tariff heading — Cheese or casein — Regulation (EEC) No
                               3174/88)                                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (2000/C 335/18)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                          in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-205/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Agents: L. Pignataro and A. Buschmann) v Republic of Austria
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Agents: H. Dossi) — application for a declaration that, by
                                                                           raising from 1 July 1995 and from 1 February 1996 the tolls
In Case C-42/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               for the whole Brenner motorway, a transit route through
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo                        Austria used predominantly by goods vehicles of over 12
Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) for a               tonnes from other Member States, and by not imposing the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  said tolls only to cover the costs of constructing, operating
court between Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld.a and                   and developing the Brenner motorway, the Republic of Austria
Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de Segunda Instância in the                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(b) and Article
presence of: Ministério Público — on the interpretation of the            7(h) of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on
Combined Nomenclature as set out in Annex I of Commission                  the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles
Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988                           used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87                    for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32) —
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common               the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
Customs Tariff (OJ 1988 L 298 p. 1) — the Court (Fifth                     J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-                  J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken,
teur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;              Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
a judgment on 26 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                    26 September 2000, in which it:


C 173/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.6.2001
1.    Is the ban on vaccination imposed by Article 13 of                      Removal from the register of Case C-403/00 (1)
      Directive 85/511/EEC(1) invalid on the ground of incon-
      sistency with Community law, in particular the principle                                (2001/C 173/56)
      of proportionality?
                                                                       By order of 27 March 2001 the President of the Court of
2.    Is the way in which the Commission has applied the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      aforesaid Article 13, in particular by the adoption of           from the register of Case C-403/00: Commission of the
      Decision 2001/246/EC (2), as amended by Decision                 European Communities v Republic of France.
      2001/279/EEC (3), invalid on the ground of inconsistency
      with Community law?                                              (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11.
(2) OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21.
(3) OJ 2001 L 96, p. 19.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-264/98 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/57)
                                                                       By order of 2 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-264/98: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Charleroi):
        Removal from the register of Case C-88/00 (1)                  Tibor Balog v Royal Charleroi Sporting Club ASBL (RCSC).
                         (2001/C 173/55)                               (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-88/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Directora-Geral                    Removal from the register of Case C-377/00 (1)
do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu
(DAFSE) v MOBILCROMO — Indústria de Mobiliário e                                            (2001/C 173/58)
Revestimentos Metálicos, Ltd.
                                                                       By order of 5 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.                                            the register of Case C-377/00: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


6.4.2002                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 84/65
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             one and the same Member State. Finally, this was not a partial
                                                                        transfer of an undertaking but a merger.
—     declare that, by failing to reach a decision on the
      complaint lodged by the applicants against a concen-
      tration with a Community dimension, which was notified
      and approved at national level by the Vienna Oberlandes-
      gericht (Higher Regional Court), in its capacity as Kar-          Action brought on 18 January 2002 by Michael Gerhard
      tellgericht (Restrictive Practices Court) by decision of          Franz Platte against Commission of the European Com-
      26 February 2001, or, in the alternative, by failing to                                       munities
      require the parties to the concentration to notify the
      defendant of the concentration, the defendant failed to                                     (Case T-6/02)
      fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                                (2002/C 84/119)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 18 January 2002 by Michael
By letter of 25 May 2001, the applicants, as owners of Austrian         Gerhard Franz Platte, residing in Tielt-Winge (Belgium), rep-
newspapers, lodged with the defendant a complaint regarding             resented by Xavier De Kesel, lawyer.
a media concentration which had been approved in Austria, to
which the companies Bertelsmann, Gruner+Jahr, Raffeisen,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
KURIER-Magazine and NEWS were parties, and which, accord-
ing to the applicants, had a Community dimension. The                   —     annul the decision of 6 September 2001 being appealed
complaint was accompanied by the request that the parties to                  against and make an order emending and implementing
the concentration be required to notify the concentration in                  what the appointing authority ought to have done,
accordance with Council Directive (EEC) No 4064/89.                           namely appoint the applicant to Grade C 4.
DG Competition took the view, in a number of letters, that              Pleas in law and main arguments
the abovementioned regulation was not applicable to the
concentration in question, as there had only been a partial             The applicant was classified, upon taking up his duties, in
transfer, which did not involve at least two undertakings with          Grade C 5. In his application, the applicant contests that
turnovers of more than EUR 250 million. DG Competition                  decision. According to the applicant, he should, in view of his
pointed out, however, that that view was not binding on the             previous experience and of the fact that the requirements of
defendant.                                                              the service call for the recruitment of a particularly well-
                                                                        qualified person, have been classified in Grade C 4.
Since the defendant failed to react within two months to the
applicants’ request for a formal decision on the complaint, the
applicants have brought an action under Article 232 EC for a
declaration of failure to act. They submit that in the absence
of a decision attributable to the defendant, it is not possible to             Removal from the register of Case T-315/00 (1)
bring an action for annulment before the Court of First
Instance, and that the applicants are directly and individually                                 (2002/C 84/120)
concerned by the defendant’s failure to adopt a decision.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicants claim that the national decision is invalid under
Article 81 EC in conjunction with Regulation 4064/89,                   By order of 29 November 2001 the President of the Fourth
because, contrary to Article 21(2) of that regulation, the              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Republic of Austria applied its national competition law to a           Communities Case T-315/00 Associazione delle Cantine Socia-
concentration with a Community dimension. In addition, they             li Venete e della Cantina dei Colli Berici against Commission
claim that there are two parties to the concentration with              of the European Communities, was removed from the register.
turnovers in excess of EUR 250 million, one of which does
not achieve more than two-thirds of its annual turnover within          (1) OJ C 335 of 25 November 2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2004 in Case T-277/02: Athanacia-Nancy Pascall v Council of the European Union (Officials — Open competition — Oral test — Omission from the reserve list — Action for annulment)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 April 2004
   in Case T-277/02: Athanacia-Nancy Pascall v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Oral test - Omission from the reserve list - Action for annulment)
   (2004/C 118/81)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-277/02: Athanacia-Nancy Pascall, an official of the Commission of the European Communities residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and D. Zahariou) – application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition Council/A/393 for the drawing up of a reserve list of administrators of Greek mother-tongue to award the applicant lower marks than the minimum required for her oral test and not to place her on the reserve list – the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of J. Pirrung, Judge; I. Natsinas (Administrator), Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of the applicant's costs; and

               3.

               Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.1.2002.