title: Judgment of the Court 4 June 2002 in Case C-483/99: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of France (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Rights attaching to the "golden share" held by the French Republic in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine)

text:
13.7.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/3
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                 1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September
                                                                                1999 on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine;
2.    Dismisses the cross-appeal by the Commission;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
3.    Orders Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and Refinarias            (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
      de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR) to pay the costs;
4.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                4 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-483/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of France (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                            16 May 2002                                     Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
                                                                            EC) — Rights attaching to the ‘golden share’ held by the
                                                                                French Republic in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine)
in Case C-482/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/05)
(State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Aid granted by the French
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Republic to Stardust Marine — Decision 2000/513/EC —
State resources — Imputability to the State — Prudent
           investor operating in a market economy)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 169/04)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          In Case C-483/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: M. Patakia) v France (Agents: initially K. Rispal-
                                                                            Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      S. Seam), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az
                   in the European Court Reports)                           Abad) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                            Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by J. Crow, barrister, and
                                                                            D. Wyatt, QC) APPLICATION for a declaration that, by
                                                                            maintaining in force Article 2(1) and (3) of Decree No 93-
In Case C-482/99, French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger              1298 of 13 December 1993 vesting in the State a ‘golden
and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities                    share’ in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine (JORF of 14 December
(Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett): Application for the annulment              1993, p. 17354), according to which the following rights
of Commission Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999                      attach to the ‘golden share’ held by the French Republic in that
on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine (OJ 2000 L 206,                 company:
p. 6), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr                  (a)   any direct or indirect shareholding by a natural or legal
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                        person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, which
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                               exceeds the ceiling of one tenth, one fifth or one third of
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-                        the capital of, or voting rights in, the company must
cate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                   first be approved by the Minister for Economic Affairs
given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it:                                     (Article 2(1) of the Decree);
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
(b) the right to oppose any decision to transfer or use as                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      security the assets listed in the annex to the Decree — the
      assets in question being the majority of the capital of four
      subsidiaries of the parent company, namely Elf-Aquitaine
      Production, Elf-Antar France, Elf-Gabon SA and Elf-                                                4 June 2002
      Congo SA (Article 2(3) of the Decree),
                                                                             in Case C-503/99: Commission of the European Communi-
and by failing to lay down sufficiently precise and objective                                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
criteria for approval of, or opposition to, the abovementioned
operations, the French Republic has failed to comply with its
obligations under Articles 52 (now, after amendment,
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 43 EC) to Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48
                                                                             Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
EC) and Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC), the
                                                                             Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann
                                                                             EC) — Rights attaching to the ‘golden shares’ held by the
(Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
                                                                             Kingdom of Belgium in Société nationale de transport par
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-
                                                                              canalisations SA and in Société de distribution du gaz SA)
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigu-
es, Judges; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 4 June 2002, in which it:
                                                                                (2002/C 169/06)
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 2(1) and (3) of
      Decree No 93-1298 of 13 December 1993 vesting in the                                       (Language of the case: French)
      State a ‘golden share’ in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine,
      according to which the following rights attach to the ‘golden
      share’ held by the French Republic in that company:                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      (a)   any direct or indirect shareholding by a natural or legal
            person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, which
            exceeds the ceiling of one tenth, one fifth or one third of
            the capital of, or voting rights in, the company must first
            be approved by the Minister for Economic Affairs;                In Case C-503/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: M. Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
                                                                             assisted by F. de Montpellier, M. Picat and A. Theissen),
      (b) the right to oppose any decision to transfer or use as             supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
            security the assets listed in the annex to the Decree — the      Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by J. Crow, barrister,
            assets in question being the majority of the capital of          and D. Wyatt, QC): Application for a declaration that, by
            four subsidiaries of that company, namely Elf-Aquitaine          maintaining in force
            Production, Elf-Antar France, Elf-Gabon SA and Elf-
            Congo SA,
                                                                             —     the provisions of the Royal Decree of 10 June 1994
                                                                                vesting in the State a ‘golden share’ in Société nationale
      the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations                de transport par canalisations (Moniteur belge of 28 June
      under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC);                      1994, p. 17333), which carries the following rights:
                                                                                a)   advance notice of any transfer, use as security or
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;                                      change in the intended destination of the company’s
                                                                                system of lines and conduits which are used or are
                                                                                capable of being used as major infrastructures for
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of                             the domestic conveyance of energy products must
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.                       be given to the Minister responsible, who shall be
                                                                                entitled to oppose such operations if he considers
                                                                                that they adversely affect the national interest in the
                                                                                energy sector;
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                                b)    the Minister may appoint two representatives of the
                                                                                Federal Government to the board of directors of the
                                                                                company. Those representatives may propose to the
                                                                                Minister the annulment of any decision of the board


title: Case C-679/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2015 — Ultra-Brag AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
   (Case C-679/15)
   (2016/C 111/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ultra-Brag AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, ‘the CC’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person becomes a customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3) of the CC as the person who introduced goods if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, brought about the unlawful introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative:
               Is the second indent of Article 202(3) of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that

                           a)

                           a legal person participates in an unlawful introduction (even) if one of its employees, who is not its statutory representative, was involved in that introduction while acting within the scope of his responsibility, and

                           b)

                           in the case of legal persons who participate in an unlawful introduction, the subjective element that they ‘were aware or should reasonably have been aware’ is to be determined by reference to the natural person in the legal person’s undertaking to whom the matter is entrusted, even if he is not the statutory representative of the legal person?

               3.

               If the answer to the first or the second question is in the affirmative:
               Is Article 212a of the CC to be interpreted as meaning that whether the conduct of a participant involves fraudulent dealing or obvious negligence is to be determined, in the case of a legal person, solely by reference to the conduct of the legal person or its organs, or is the conduct of a natural person employed by it and entrusted with the task within the scope of his responsibility to be attributed to it?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case T-479/16: Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/22

         Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS)
   (Case T-479/16)
   (2016/C 383/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler, A. Stolz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘AROMASENSATIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 198 824

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 in Case R 2482/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismisses the appeal insofar as it is based on Article 7(1)(b);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of principles of equal treatment and sound administration.


title: Case T-182/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/19

         Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Moallem Insurance v Council
   (Case T-182/13)
   2013/C 164/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Moallem Insurance Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71);

               —

               Annul paragraph 18 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55);

               —

               Declare Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 (1) and Article 35 of Council Regulation 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Order that the Council pay the Applicant’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction to review both paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 21, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the specific reason for the listing of Moallem is wrong and the requirements of Article 20.1 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (as subsequently amended by Article 1.7 of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012, Article 1.8 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 25 October 2012 and Article 1.2 of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012), and the requirements of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (as subsequently amended by Article 1.11 of Council Regulation 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012) are not met.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December are not sufficiently motivated. They violate Moallem’s rights of defence and its right to have a fair hearing since the Council never responded to Moallem’s letter of 6 February 2013 and Moallem was not granted access to the Council’s file.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated articles 24.3 and 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Articles 46.3 and 46.4 of Council Regulation 267/2012. Articles 24.3 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 require the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and Articles 24.4 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and 46.4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 provide for the review of the decision when observations are submitted.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council, in its assessment of Moallem’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 35 of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 should not apply to Moallem insofar as they violate the principle of proportionality set forth in Article 5.4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, as subsequently amended, on the basis of which the contested Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 was adopted, violates Article 215, par. 2 and 3 TFEU as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

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

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)


title: Case T-72/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/28

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case T-72/12)
   2012/C 109/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Order that Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union has no application to the annulment of the applicant’s designation; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the substantive criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met when reviewing the applicant’s designation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the continued designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that in continuing the applicant’s designation, the defendant has breached the procedural requirement: (i) to give adequate reasons; and (ii) to respect the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in so far as the applicant’s application in case T-496/10 Bank Mellat v Council is successful, this application must also succeed.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

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

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)


title: Case T-197/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/9

         Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)
   (Case T-197/12)
   2012/C 209/15
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;

               —

               Subsidiary and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark, in colours ‘METRO’, for amongst others services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7585045

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7111974 of the figurative mark in colours ‘GRUPOMETROPOLIS’, for services in class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-307/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Pagliacci v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Failure to include candidate's name on the reserve list — Breach of the notice of competition — Qualifications and professional experience required)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Pagliacci v Commission
   (Case T-307/04) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Failure to include candidate's name on the reserve list - Breach of the notice of competition - Qualifications and professional experience required)
   (2008/C 22/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlo Pagliacci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, initially, and F. Schiaudone, lawyer, subsequently)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the selection board of competition COM/A/1/02, which gave the applicant insufficient points in the tests for his name to be included in the list of successful candidates.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the section board of competition COM/A/1/02 which gave Mr Carlo Pagliacci insufficient points in the tests for his name to be included in the list of successful candidates;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 14.5.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur by interim order of the President of that court of 16 February 1996 in the case of Christelle Deliège v. Asbl Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées and Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo (Case C-51/96)

text:
 No C 133/ 12           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
 but leaves to the national authority the choice of form and              concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the
 methods .                                                                European Community ( the 'Barber Protocol ') prevail
                                                                          over German constitutional law ( Article 3 ( 1 ) of the
Under Article 1 92 of the same Treaty, the Member States are              Grundgesetz ( Basic Law)), which specifically precludes a
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or                      prohibition of retroactivity in cases such as that
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out           described in Question 1 ?
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
 institutions of the Community . Furthermore, under the first        4 . Does the retroactivity permitted by German
paragraph of Article 33 of the Treaty, each Member State is              constitutional law pursuant to Article 3 ( 1 ) of the
to lay down the appropriate provisions , whether by                       Grundgesetz constitute , in a case such as that described
legislation, regulation or administrative action, to ensure              in Question 1 , an impermissible circumvention of the
compliance with the basic standards which have been                      prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol
established and to take the necessary measures with regard               concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty, where, by
to teaching, education and vocational training. In the                   contrast with Community law, the national law
present case , since the Directive was adopted on the basis of           applicable in comparable circumstances, which is
Article 31 of the Treaty, the principles which it lays down              also aimed at establishing equality of treatment in
are to be deemed to be basic standards within the meaning of             occupational pension schemes, operates retroactively in
Article 33 .                                                             favour of employees, in particular women who are the
                                                                         subject of indirect discrimination ?
The Commission claims that Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of the
Directive have been inadequately transposed, since various           5 . If Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative :
draft Royal Decrees have not yet been adopted . The period               does the application of paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the
prescribed in Article 399 of the Act of Accession of the                 Beschàftigungsfôrderungsgesetz        ( Law     for      the
Kingdom of Spain expired on 1 April 1986 .                               Promotion of Employment ) of 26 April 1985 , which
                                                                         purports to allow retroactivity up to 26 April 1985 ,
(') OJ No L 265 , 5 . 10 . 1984 , p . 1 .                                constitute an impermissible circumvention of the
                                                                         prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol
                                                                         concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty ( the 'Barber
                                                                         Protocol')?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         6 . Does the retroactivity permitted pursuant to
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of                   Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Grundgesetz in cases such as
20 December 1995 in the case of Lilli Schroder v. Deutsche               that described in Question 1 constitute a breach
                       Bundespost Telekom                                of Community law from the standpoint of
                         ( Case C-50/96 )
                                                                         disproportionate discrimination against nationals such
                                                                         as the German undertakings affected , or in the light of
                            96/C 133/24 )                                an interpretation of national law that renders it
                                                                         consistent with the Community rules or a principle of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                       Community law, and does Community law prevail in
the European Communities by order of the Landes                         that respect over national law ?
arbeitsgericht Hamburg ( Regional Labour Court,
Hamburg) of 20 December 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 21 February 1996, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Lilli Schroder v. Deutsche Bundespost
Telekom on the following questions :
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
1 . Where part-time employees working less than 18 hours            Première Instance de Namur by interim order of the
     per week are excluded by gender-neutral wording from           President of that court of 16 February 1996 in the case of
     eligibility for a supplementary pension operated within        Christelle Deliège v. Asbl Ligue Francophone de Judo et
     the framework of an occupational pension scheme, and                Disciplines Associées and Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo
     approximately 95 % of the employees affected by that                                   ( Case C-51/96 )
     exclusion are women, does that constitute indirect
     discrimination against women within the meaning of the                                   ( 96/C 133/25 )
     case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 119 of the
     EEC Treaty ?                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an interim order of the President
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative : do         of the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur ( Court of
     the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty              First Instance, Namur) of 16 February 1996, which was
     establishing the European Community ( the ' Barber             received at the Court Registry on 21 February 1996 , for a
     Protocol') and the prohibition of retroactivity contained      preliminary ruling in the case of Christelle Deliège v. Asbl
     therein also cover cases of indirect discrimination            Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées and
     against women in circumstances such as those described         Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo on the following question:
     in Question 1 ?
                                                                    Whether or not rules which require a professional or
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative : does       semi-professional sportsman or a person aspiring to such
     the prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol     status to have been authorized or selected by his national


title: Case T-55/08: Action brought on 5 February 2008 — UEFA v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/28

         Action brought on 5 February 2008 — UEFA v Commission
   (Case T-55/08)
   (2008/C 107/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) (Nyon, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Bell and K. Learoyd, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the contested decision insofar as it approves, as a matter of Community law, the listing in the United Kingdom of the entire EURO; and

               —

               an order that the Commission pay its own costs and UEFA's costs in relation to these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) a Member State may draw up a list of sporting or other events that are considered to be events of ‘major importance to society’. The events on the list cannot be the subject of exclusive broadcasting rights which prevent a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State from watching the event via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 (2) by which the Commission declared that the list drawn up by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, listing the entire UEFA European Football Championship final tournament — the EURO, was compatible with Community law.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's decision:

               —

               is not adopted following a clear and transparent procedure as required under Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552/EEC;

               —

               does not set out an adequate statement of reasons;

               —

               is based on a manifest error of appreciation, as the Commission concluded that matches not involving any home nation team in the EURO could be considered as events of major importance for the UK society;

               —

               contains no proper analysis of competition law or of the free movement of services and leads to a disproportionate and unjustified distortion of competition on the relevant market and restriction of the free provision of broadcasting services;

               —

               infringes the applicant's property rights, as it results in a restriction of the way in which the applicant may market the television rights to the EURO;

               —

               infringes the principle of proportionality, as it is neither suitable nor necessary for the objectives it purports to achieve; and

               —

               infringes the principle of equal treatment, as it gives the applicant a disadvantage compared to other right holders.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

      (2)  Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12).


title: Case T-529/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (START UP INITIATIVE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark START UP INITIATIVE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (START UP INITIATIVE)
   (Case T-529/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark START UP INITIATIVE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 038/43)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Braga, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock, and subsequently by L. Rampini, acting Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2015 (Case R 2777/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign START UP INITIATIVE as a European Union trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case F-68/09: Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Barbin v Parliament

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/43

         Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Barbin v Parliament
   (Case F-68/09)
   2009/C 220/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 10 November 2008 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 for the 2006 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the European Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 for the 2006 promotion exercise;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-131/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2008 — Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark SONIA SONIA RYKIEL — Earlier national word mark SONIA — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/16

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2008 — Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)
   (Case T-131/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark SONIA SONIA RYKIEL - Earlier national word mark SONIA - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 158/24)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud and S. Strittmatter, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cuadrado, SA (Seville, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Cuadrado, SA and Sonia Rykiel création et diffusion de modèles.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2006 (Case R 329/2005-1).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2004 in Case T-230/02: X v Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Prior complaint through official channels — Action in part devoid of any legal basis and in part inadmissible)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 June 2004
   in Case T-230/02: X v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for damages - Prior complaint through official channels - Action in part devoid of any legal basis and in part inadmissible)
   (2004/C 239/49)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-230/02: X, a former official of the European Communities, residing at Hellerup (Denmark), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission's failure to comply with the judgments of the Court of First Instance and of the conduct of the applicant's line manager — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 7 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-582/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 16 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Consalvo

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 16 November 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Alfonso Consalvo
   (Case C-582/16)
   (2017/C 195/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Salerno

      Party to the main proceedings

   Alfonso Consalvo
   By order of 4 April 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) held that:

               1.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.


title: Case T-155/17: Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/37

         Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission
   (Case T-155/17)
   (2017/C 129/56)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Van Haren Schoenen BV (Waalwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. The pleas put forward are identical to those put forward in Case T-154/17, Deichmann v Commission.


title: Case T-231/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Adriatica di Navigazione and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/21

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Adriatica di Navigazione and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ v Commission
   (Case T-231/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 38/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Adriatica di Navigazione SpA (Venice, Italy) and Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ (Venice) (represented by: M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and lastly by I. Bruni, agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is considered with the substance of the case.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.


title: Case T-203/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/27

         Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission
   (Case T-203/11)
   2011/C 186/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions (Beuvillers, France) (represented by: É. Deshoulières, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission jointly to compensate SARL Tarnsports Schiocchet — Excursions for the loss it has suffered, amounting to EUR 8 372 483;

               —

               Rule that the sums thus awarded are to bear interest at the statutory rate to run from notification of the preliminary claim for compensation to the European Commission;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, on the basis of Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard by a court and, in particular, of the obligation of the bodies of the European Union to make it possible to obtain an effective remedy in the event of infringement of rights afforded to individuals by European Union law. The applicant points to the lack, firstly, of sanctions on Member States and transporters unwilling to comply with the authorisation procedure instituted by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 and, secondly, of any system of compensation for transporters who do undergo that authorisation procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 94 TFEU to 96 TFEU in that the Commission was required to ensure proper application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, (1) efficiently to apprehend operators which had not undergone the authorisation procedure laid down in that regulation and to put an end to the discrimination caused by application of the regulation. The applicant refers to the fact that necessary measures were not taken by the Commission with regard to implementing the regulation in question despite a number of complaints made by the applicant, due to which it is shown that the Commission was aware of the situation. The defendant’s failure to act, when effectively it was aware of the situation adversely affecting the applicant, constitutes a serious and manifest failure to fulfil obligations leading to a sufficiently serious infringement of Articles 94 TFEU to 96 TFEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).


title: Case C-176/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans v État belge
   (Case C-176/15)
   (2015/C 221/02)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Guy Riskin, Geneviève Timmermans

      Defendant: État belge

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the rule laid down in Article 285 of the Belgian 1992 Income Tax Code (Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992), implicitly endorsing the double taxation of foreign dividends in the case of a natural person residing in Belgium, consistent with the principles of Community law enshrined in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, in so far as it enables Belgium to give advantage as it sees fit — according to the provisions of Belgian law to which the double taxation convention negotiated by Belgium refers (Article 285 which lays down the conditions for tax credits or Article 286 which merely prescribes the fixed percentage of tax that may be allowed as a credit) — to investment in third countries (United States), to the detriment of possible investment in the Member States of the European Union (Poland)?

               2.

               In so far as it makes the possibility of allowing foreign tax as a credit against Belgian tax conditional upon the capital and property from which the income is derived being applied in Belgium in the conduct of professional activity, is Article 285 of the 1992 Income Tax Code not contrary to Articles 49, 56 and 58 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case T-151/04: Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/10

         Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-151/04)
   (2004/C 168/19)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Nöel Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision establishing the final career development report for the period from 1 July to 31 December 2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case objects to his career development report, as drawn up for the period from 1 July to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims, the applicant argues:

               —

               failure to observe the obligation to state reasons;

               —

               infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the transitional measures applicable to the appraisal exercise 2001-2002;

               —

               infringement of Article 5(5)(c) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               manifest error of assessment;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

               —

               lack of consistency between the comments and the mark awarded.


title: Case F-133/07: Action brought on 9 November 2007 — Hecq v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/48

         Action brought on 9 November 2007 — Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-133/07)
   (2008/C 92/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   (i) annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2007 to the extent that it dismisses a complaint brought by the applicant against a decision of the appointing authority which refused him entitlement to certain benefits, and (ii) order that the defendant pay compensation and default interest
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2007 to the extent that it dismisses the application for benefits brought by the applicant in terms of his complaint of 19 March 2007, and to the extent that it rejects the principle of default interest calculated, from 29 April 2003 on benefits which might be awarded to the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 2 000, with the addition of interest at the rate of 6 %, to date from 19 March 2007, but subject to any subsequent increase, decrease or specification;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant default interest, at the rate of 6 % per annum, on all benefits which might subsequently be awarded to him under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-264/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Breisach (Germany) by decision of that court of 7 June 2004 in the case of Badischer Winzerkeller eG against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Breisach (Germany) by decision of that court of 7 June 2004 in the case of Badischer Winzerkeller eG against Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-264/04)
   (2004/C 228/42)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Amtsgericht Breisach (Germany), of 7 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Badischer Winzerkeller eG against Land Baden-Württemberg.
   The Amtsgericht Breisach (Germany) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

               1.

               Must Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, in the version resulting from Council Directive 73/79/EEC (2) of 9 April 1973 varying the field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, Council Directive 73/80/EEC (3) of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates of capital duty, Council Directive 74/553/EEC (4) of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5(2) of Directive No 69/335/EEC concerning direct taxes on the raising of capital, and Council Directive 85/303/EEC (5) of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the directive’) be interpreted as meaning that all operations referred to in Article 10(c) of the directive fall within the prohibition thereby enacted, irrespective of the conditions in Article 4?

               2.

               When applying the directive, should no distinction be made between fees for the provision of services by the State and taxes, with the result that ‘fees’ under the Kostenordnung can be assimilated to taxes on the transfer of ownership?

               3.

               Should the Court answer the second question in the affirmative, should the last sentence of Article 12(2) of the directive be interpreted as meaning that an exception arises from the fact that Article 60 of the Kostenordnung (Gesetz über die Kosten in Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit, in the version of 26 July 1957, Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 960), for example, makes no provision for a charge for rectifying the land register in succession cases where the application for registration is made within two years following the death?

      (1)  OJ L 249, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ L 103, p. 13.

      (3)  OJ L 103, p. 15.

      (4)  OJ L 303, p. 9.

      (5)  OJ L 156, p. 23.


title: Case C-478/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
   (Case C-478/17)
   (2017/C 347/22)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: IQ

      Respondent: JP

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the expression ‘the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter’ which appears in Article 15 of the Brussels II Regulation (1) refer equally to courts hearing the case at first instance and to courts of appeal? It is important to know whether the case may be transferred, on the basis of that provision, to a court better placed to hear it if the court having jurisdiction and being asked to transfer the case to a better placed court is a court of appeal, while the better placed court is a court of first instance.

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, how is the court having jurisdiction and transferring the case to a better placed court to deal with the judgment at first instance?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case C-216/09: Appeal brought on 15 June 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber)delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission.

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/22

         Appeal brought on 15 June 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber)delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg and Others v Commission.
   (Case C-216/09)
   2009/C 205/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and X. Lewis, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International, formerly Arcelor International SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment delivered on 31 March 2009 in Case T-405/06 ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA and Others v Commission, to the extent that it annuls the fines imposed by Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 (1) on ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (formerly ProfilARBED) and on ArcelorMittal International SA (formerly TradeARBED);

               —

               Dismiss the actions of ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA;

               —

               Order the other parties to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on a single ground in support of its appeal, namely that the Court of First Instance failed to observe the rules relating to limitation periods in proceedings.
   According to the Commission, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is based on a literal and excessively restrictive interpretation of Decision 715/78/ECSC (2) and, in particular, its Articles 2(3) and (3), since the Court makes a distinction between the interruption of the limitation period and its suspension. As distinct from Article 2(2), which explicitly states that all parties are affected by the interruption of the limitation period, Article 3 is silent on the effects of suspension. The judgment of the Court of First Instance is vitiated by an error of law in that it concludes that the suspension of the limitation period brought about by the commencement by one party of legal proceedings before the Community judicature applies only as regards the applicant company and holds therefore that the limitation period had expired as regards the other parties.
   The Commission claims that, contrary to the ruling of the Court of First Instance, the silence of the legislation does not permit the inference that the effect of suspension is personal and Article 3 of Decision 715/78/ECSC should be interpreted in the light of the objectives of the legislation at issue, relating to the Commission having the opportunity to bring proceedings against and penalise effectively contraventions of competition law.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2006) 5342 final of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (Case COMP/F/38.907 — Steel beams)

      (2)  Commission Decision No 715/78/ECSC of 6 April 1978 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (OJ 1978 L 94, p. 22).


title: Case C-648/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determining the Member State responsible — Unaccompanied minor — Successive applications for asylum lodged in two Member States — Absence of a member of the family of the minor in the territory of a Member State — Second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 343/2003 — Transfer of the minor to the Member State in which he lodged his first application — Compatibility — Child’s best interests — Article 24(2) of the Charter)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-648/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determining the Member State responsible - Unaccompanied minor - Successive applications for asylum lodged in two Member States - Absence of a member of the family of the minor in the territory of a Member State - Second paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No 343/2003 - Transfer of the minor to the Member State in which he lodged his first application - Compatibility - Child’s best interests - Article 24(2) of the Charter)
   2013/C 225/29
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: MA, BT, DA

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Intervener: The AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) (UK)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum applications lodged by unaccompanied minors who are third-country nationals

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second paragraph of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where an unaccompanied minor with no member of his family legally present in the territory of a Member State has lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State, the Member State in which that minor is present after having lodged an asylum application there is to be designated the ‘Member State responsible’.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 15 January 1998 in Case C-292/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Göritz Intransco International GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Community Customs Code - Community transit procedure - Simplified procedures - Authorised consignor status - Conditions for granting)

text:
28.3.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 94/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       provisions for the implementation of Regulation
                       (First Chamber)                                    (EEC) No 2913/92.
                     of 15 January 1998
                                                                     2. Article 398 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 allows
in Case C-292/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 customs authorities to grant the status of authorised
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Göritz Intransco Internatio-               consignor even when it is no longer possible to exempt
         nal GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (1)                          such consignor from the obligation to present the
(Community Customs Code Ð Community transit                               goods at the office of departure because they have
procedure Ð Simplified procedures Ð Authorised                            already been presented to customs.
        consignor status Ð Conditions for granting)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
                         (98/C 94/01)
              (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
In Case C-292/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                                of 29 January 1998
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court),             in Case C-346/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Düsseldorf (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels): Belgisch Inter-
proceedings pending before that court between Göritz                         ventie- en Restitutiebureau v. Prolacto NV (1)
Intransco International GmbH and Hauptzollamt Düssel-
dorf Ð on the interpretation of Article 76 of Council                (Common agricultural policy Ð Food aid Ð Supply of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                       skimmed-milk powder Ð Successful tenderer's failure to
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,                   discharge its obligations Ð Loss of security Ð Payment of
19.10.1992, p. 1) and Article 398 of Commission                      the additional costs resulting from a fresh tendering
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down                                 procedure Ð Cumulation)
provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC)                                         (98/C 94/02)
No 2913/92 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward
(Rapporteur), acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgement on 15 January 1998,
the operative part of which is as follows:                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
1. Under Article 76(4) of Council Regulation (EEC)
    No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the                   In Case C-346/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    Community Customs Code, customs authorities may                  of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg
    grant the status of authorised consignor only on the             (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
    basis of Articles 398 to 405 of Commission Regulation            in the proceedings pending before that court between Bel-
    (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down                      gisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and Prolacto NV Ð


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 July 1998 in Case T-155/95: LPN and GEOTA v. Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 299/35
represented by Annetje-Theckla Ottow, of the Amsterdam                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                        of 8 July 1998
Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias
Hardt, against the Commission of the European                        in Joined Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92):
Communities (Agents: Hendrik Van Lier, Marc van der                  EugeÂnio Branco Lda v. Commission of the European
Woude and Rita Wezembeek-Geuke) Ð application for                                           Communities (1)
annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and
concerning an application for repayment of import duties                                     (98/C 299/62)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt, and A. Potocki, Judges;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 July 1998 in which it:
                                                                     In Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) EugeÂnio
1. annuls the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997                  Branco Lda, established in Lisbon, represented by Bolota
    addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and                  Belchior of the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for
    concerning an application for repayment of import                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
    duties;                                                          Schroeder, 6, rue Heine, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa
                                                                     Fialho and Knut Simonsson) Ð application for costs to be
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           taxed following the Court's judgments in Branco v.
                                                                     Commission (T-85/94 [1995] ECR II-45) and Commission
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             v. Branco (T-85/94 (122) [1995] ECR II-2993) Ð the
                                                                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V.
                                                                     Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 July 1998 in
                                                                     which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            1. joins Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) for
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                    the purpose of this order;
                        of 14 July 1998
     in Case T-219/97: Anita Brems v. Council of the                 2. fixes at PTE 3 500 000, plus VAT if appropriate, the
                      European Union (1)                                  total amount of costs recoverable in Cases T-85/94
                                                                          and T-85/94 (122).
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Thermal cure Ð
Article 59 of the Staff Regulations Ð Sick leave Ð Special
                                                                     (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
                             leave)
                         (98/C 299/61)
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-219/97: Anita Brems, an official of the Council                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the European Union, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,                                     of 15 July 1998
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire              in Case T-155/95: LPN and GEOTA v. Commission of the
Myson SA  Á RL, 30, rue de Cessange, against the Council of                            European Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Martin                                   (Inadmissibility)
Bauer) Ð application for the annulment of decisions of
the Council refusing to grant to the applicant all her sick                                  (98/C 299/63)
leave from 24 May to 8 June 1996 Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:                               In Case T-155/95, LPN, Liga para ProteccËaÄo da Natureza
                                                                     and GEOTA, Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Ter-
1. dismisses the application;                                        ritório e do Ambiente, both established in Lisbon,
                                                                     represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui Amen-
                                                                     doeira, JoseÂ Cunhal Sendim and Paula Gomes Freire, of
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       the Lisbon Bar, with chambers at Avenida António
                                                                     Augusto Aguiar, 27, 2.o, Dt.o, Lisbon, against the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     António Caeiro and Günter Wilms), supported by the
                                                                     Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Angelo
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/36              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
CortesaÄo SeicËa Neves) Ð application for the annulment of          Action brought on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen
the Commission decision of 21 December 1994 granting                         against the Council of the European Union
funding under Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of                                        (Case T-103/98)
16 May 1995 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2) for Project
No 94/10/65/005 concerning the construction of a new                                         (98/C 299/65)
road bridge across the Tagus in the Lisbon region of
Portugal Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and                          (Language of the case: French)
M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on
15 July 1998 in which it:
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;            Communities on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen,
                                                                    resident in Waterloo, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
2. orders the applicants to bear their own costs and,               Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
    jointly and severally to pay those incurred by the              Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
    Commission;                                                     in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                    30, rue de Cessange.
3. orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 286, 28.10.1995.
(2) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.
                                                                    Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
                                                                        the request for refund of that part of the pension
                                                                        rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
                                                                        which was not taken into consideration in the
                                                                        calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                        account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Staff Regulations,
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                        of 8 July 1998                              Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
in Case T-200/95 X. v. Commission of the European
                       Communities (1)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Officials Ð Time limit for submitting a complaint Ð
                   Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                    The applicant, a Council official of Danish nationality,
                        (98/C 299/64)                               challenges the decision of the Director-General for
                                                                    Administration and Protocol of 6 October 1997 rejecting
                (Language of the case: Greek)                       his request for a refund of that part of the sum paid to the
                                                                    institution by the Danish pension schemes, on the transfer
In Case T-200/95: X., a former official of the Commission           of his pension rights acquired in Denmark, which could
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                  not be taken into account in the calculation of the number
represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens            of years of pensionable service to be credited under the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Community pension scheme.
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand'Rue, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Maria
                                                                    In support of his claims he contends:
Condou and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for
annulment of a decision refusing the applicant admission
to the Commission's buildings following the adoption of a           Ð that Article 11(1) and (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
decision removing him from his post and also for                        Regulations has been infringed. Under that provision
compensation for the loss suffered in that connection Ð                 an official is entitled on establishment to have paid to
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,                      the Communities either the actuarial equivalent or the
President of the Chamber, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.                     flat-rate redemption value of retirement pension rights
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on                 acquired before his entry into service. In the
8 July in which it:                                                     applicant's view, that is a mandatory duty not
                                                                        allowing the exercise of any discretion as to the
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                appropriateness of taking into account the whole or
                                                                        part of the amount of the pension rights transferred by
                                                                        the official,
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.                                           Ð that the third indent of Article 10(3) of the general
                                                                        provisions implementing Article 11 of Annex VIII to
                                                                        the Staff Regulations is unlawful inasmuch as it lays


title: Case C-277/04: Action brought on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/24

         Action brought on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-277/04)
   (2004/C 228/48)
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Arnaud Bordes of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2001/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2001 amending Council Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition and Directives 70/524/EEC, 96/25/EC and 1999/29/EC on animal nutrition (1) into national law within the prescribed period, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;

               2)

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 September 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 234, p. 55.


title: Case C-20/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Daniel Unland v Land Berlin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) — Direct discrimination on grounds of age — Basic salary of judges — Transitional arrangements — Reclassification and subsequent career advancement — Different treatment perpetuated — Justifications)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Daniel Unland v Land Berlin
   (Case C-20/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) - Direct discrimination on grounds of age - Basic salary of judges - Transitional arrangements - Reclassification and subsequent career advancement - Different treatment perpetuated - Justifications))
   (2015/C 363/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daniel Unland

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that pay conditions for judges fall within the scope of that directive.

               2)

               Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the basic pay of a judge is determined at the time of his appointment solely according to the judge’s age.

               3)

               Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing the detailed rules governing the reclassification of existing judges within a new remuneration system under which the pay step that they are now to be allocated is determined solely on the basis of the amount received by way of basic pay under the old remuneration system, notwithstanding the fact that that system was founded on discrimination based on the judge’s age, provided the different treatment to which that law gives rise may be justified by the aim of protecting acquired rights.

               4)

               Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down detailed rules for the career progression of judges already in post before the entry into force of that law within a new remuneration system and securing faster pay progression from a certain pay step onwards for such judges who had reached a certain age at the time of transition to the new system than for such judges who were younger on the transition date, provided the different treatment to which that law gives rise may be justified in the light of Article 6(1) of that directive.

               5)

               In circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, EU law does not require judges who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade.
               It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions laid down by the case-law of the Court are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law.

               6)

               EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as the rule at issue in the main proceedings, which requires national judges to take steps, within relatively narrow time-limits — that is to say, before the end of the financial year then in course — to assert a claim to financial payments that do not arise directly from the law, where that rule does not conflict with the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case F-92/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2015 — Weissenfels v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Content of an e-mail sent by the administration to a retired official — Impugnment of the applicant’s honour — Absence — Communication by the staff representing the institution of the applicant’s personal information to his lawyer in proceedings before the General Court — Infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 — False factual assertions)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2015 — Weissenfels v Parliament
   (Case F-92/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Action for compensation - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Content of an e-mail sent by the administration to a retired official - Impugnment of the applicant’s honour - Absence - Communication by the staff representing the institution of the applicant’s personal information to his lawyer in proceedings before the General Court - Infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 - False factual assertions))
   (2015/C 363/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg in Brisgau, Germany) (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, firstly, for annulment of the European Parliament’s refusal to compensate the application for the harm which he has suffered due to infringements of his personal rights and of the provisions of Regulation No 45/2011 in the handling of a previous case, and, secondly, for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014, p. 40.