title: Case C-243/10: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/24

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-243/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not taking within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to abolish the State aid scheme found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998, (notified on 4 July 2008 under No C(2008) 2997 and published in OJ L 302 of 13.11.2008, p. 9), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Decision 2008/854 declares to be incompatible with the common market the aid scheme which results from Ruling No 33/6 of 27 July 2000 of the Sardinian Regional Council, applied in conjunction with Article 2 of Regional Law No 9 of 11 March 1998, because it enables aid to be granted which has no incentive effect. In consequence, the Commission ordered recovery of the aid granted under that scheme (see Articles 2, 3 and 4).

               2.

               However, it emerges from the voluminous correspondence between the Italian authorities and the Commission, following notification of Decision 2008/854, that at a point almost 2 years on from the adoption of that decision, the Italian authorities still have to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid granted under that scheme, together with interest. Manifestly, therefore, the national procedures which have been followed have not been such as to enable ‘immediate and effective’ recovery and, accordingly, Italy has failed to meet its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2008/854.

               3.

               It also emerges that none of the information requested was provided by the Italian authorities by the deadline set in Article 4(1) of Decision 2008/854. The inescapable conclusion is that Italy has not complied with Article 4 of the decision.


title: Case C-440/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Croce Amica One Italia Srl v Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public services contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 89/665/EEC — Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Provisional award of the contract — Criminal investigations initiated in respect of the legal representative of the successful tenderer — Decision by the contracting authority not to proceed with the definitive award of the contract and to withdraw the invitation to tender — Judicial review)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Croce Amica One Italia Srl v Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU)
   (Case C-440/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public services contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 89/665/EEC - Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Provisional award of the contract - Criminal investigations initiated in respect of the legal representative of the successful tenderer - Decision by the contracting authority not to proceed with the definitive award of the contract and to withdraw the invitation to tender - Judicial review))
   (2015/C 046/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Croce Amica One Italia Srl

      Defendant: Azienda Regionale Emergenza Urgenza (AREU)

      Intervener: Consorzio Lombardia Sanità

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 41(1), 43 and 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions for the application of the grounds for exclusion set out in Article 45 are not fulfilled, that article does not preclude the adoption by a contracting authority of a decision not to award a contract for which a procurement procedure has been held and not to proceed with the definitive award of the contract to the sole tenderer remaining in contention to whom the contract had been provisionally awarded.

               2)

               European Union public procurement law, in particular the third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the review referred to in that provision constitutes a review of the lawfulness of decisions adopted by contracting authorities, the purpose of which is to ensure that the relevant rules of EU law or national provisions transposing those rules are complied with. It is not possible for such review to be confined to a simple examination of whether the decisions adopted by contracting authorities are arbitrary. On the other hand, that does not mean that it is not open to the national legislature to grant the competent national courts and tribunals the power to review whether a measure was expedient.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


C 118/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-368/99 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-343/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/82)                                                       (2001/C 118/85)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-368/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-343/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: La Che-          European Communities v France.
mise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-378/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/83)                                                       (2001/C 118/86)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 23 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-378/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/84)                                                       (2001/C 118/87)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 25 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/00: (reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-335/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Stratford): F. Harding v         European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Skandia Asset Management Ltd.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 in Case C-416/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Padova): Tommaso Morellato v Comune di Padova (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Selling arrangements — National legislation requiring prior packaging and specific labelling for the marketing of deep-frozen bread lawfully produced in a Member State and placed on the market in another Member State after further baking)

text:
C 264/4                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 18 September 2003                                                       of 18 September 2003
in Case C-346/00: United Kingdom of Great Britain                          in Case C-416/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European                          the Tribunale Civile di Padova): Tommaso Morellato v
                          Communities (1)                                                        Comune di Padova (1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years                           (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                1996 and 1997 — Arable crops)                              Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Selling arrangements —
                                                                           National legislation requiring prior packaging and specific
                                                                           labelling for the marketing of deep-frozen bread lawfully
                                                                           produced in a Member State and placed on the market in
                          (2003/C 264/05)                                           another Member State after further baking)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                  (2003/C 264/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-346/00, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by P. Roth, QC) v            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr                                    in the European Court Reports)
and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of Commission
Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Com-
munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricul-
tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
p. 49), in so far as it excluded from Community financing, for             In Case C-416/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the financial years 1996 and 1997, expenditure of EUR                      EC by the Tribunale Civile di Padova (Italy) for a preliminary
5 039 175.46 incurred by the United Kingdom in the                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
arable crops sector, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:               Tommaso Morellato and Comune di Padova, on the interpret-
D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,              ation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,             amendment, Articles 28 and 30 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal                composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
18 September 2003, in which it:                                            D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von
                                                                           Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
                                                                           R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2003, in which it has ruled:
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern              1.   The requirement for prior packaging imposed by the law of a
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                                 Member State on the sale of bread obtained by completing, in
                                                                                that Member State, the baking of partly baked bread, whether
                                                                                deep-frozen or not, that has been imported from another
                                                                                Member State does not constitute a quantitative restriction or a
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                     measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
                                                                                EC), provided that it applies without distinction to both national
                                                                                and imported products and that it does not in reality constitute
                                                                                discrimination against imported products.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 264/5
      If the national court, in examining these measures, finds that         1.   Annuls Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/
      that requirement results in an obstacle to imports, then it                 2000 of 21 September 2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol
      cannot be justified by reasons relating to the protection of the            No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC)
      health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of               No 3298/94 with regard to the system of ecopoints for heavy
      the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC).                        goods vehicles transiting through Austria;
2.    National courts have an obligation to ensure the full effect of        2.   Annuls Article 1 and Article 2(4) of that regulation but
      Article 30 of the Treaty by disapplying on their own initiative             declares that their effects are to be regarded as definitive;
      domestic provisions which do not comply with that article.
                                                                             3.   Dismisses the remainder of the action;
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                             4.   Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those of the
                                                                                interlocutory proceedings and of the procedure relating to the
                                                                                withdrawal of a document from the case-file;
                                                                             5.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic
                                                                                and the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                their own costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
                      of 11 September 2003
in Case C-445/00: Republic of Austria v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
(System of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting
through Austria — Amendment by Regulation (EC)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   No 2012/2000 — Illegality)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (2003/C 264/07)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 11 September 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-6/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)                            the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Associação
                                                                             Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas (Ano-
                                                                                mar) and Others v Estado português (1)
In Case C-445/00, Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi) v                    (Freedom to provide services — Operation of games of
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino and                             chance or gambling — Gaming machines)
G. Houttuin) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by J. Sedemund), by Italian
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli) and by                                             (2003/C 264/08)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
by C. Schmidt and M. Wolfcarius, and, subsequently,
C. Schmidt and W. Wils): Application for annulment of                                          (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 September
2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94 with regard to the                                      in the European Court Reports)
system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting
through Austria (OJ 2000 L 241, p. 18), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,               In Case C-6/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                 by the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa (Portugal) for a
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Con-                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
tet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               between Associação Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas
11 September 2003, in which it:                                              Recreativas (Anomar) and Others and Estado português, on


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Richmond Magistrates Court by order of that court of 3 September 1996 in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against 1. E. Clarke & Sons (Coaches) Limited and 2. D. J. Ferne (Case C-47/97)

text:
No C 94/ 12           ran                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 3 February 1997 by the Commission of                        Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic                    of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                          (Case C-43/97)                                      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
                                                                              respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (*) as regards
                            ( 97/C 94/23 )                                    consumption aid for olive oil, and
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service             — Infringement of the rules concerning the financing of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the common agricultural policy and of the rules
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     governing the common organization of the market in
                                                                              the oils and fats sector: the Kingdom of Spain states,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   with regard to each of the undertakings in respect of
                                                                              which the Commission proposes financial corrections,
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                    the reasons for which it considers that the Commission
       the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                     committed an error when assessing compliance with
       necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC                   the Community rules by the undertakings concerned.
       of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the
       award of public supply contracts ( ! ), or in any event           — Breach of the principle of proportionality: in the case
       by failing to notify said provisions to the Commission,                of the two undertakings from which the EAGGF
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              requires withdrawal of authorization for entitlement to
       under Article 34 ( 1 ) of that Directive;                             consumption aid, the amount cannot be regarded as
                                                                              significant, nor does there exist any intention to
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                              defraud .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           Also the application of a correction of 100% of the
                                                                              aid in the case of four of the undertakings
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                              investigated, and of 10% in the case of the nine
Directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                              others, does not correspond to any established
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                             criterion and is consequently out of all proportion to
Member States are required to observe the time limits laid
                                                                             the possible infringement committed.
down in directives for their transposition. That time limit
expired on 14 June 1994 without the Italian Republic
                                                                         (') OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p. 26 .
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application.
( 1 ) OJNoL 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court by order of that court of 3 September
                                                                         1996 in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against 1 . E.
                                                                             Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2. D. J. Feme
Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Kingdom                                                   ( Case C-47/97 )
of Spain against the Commission of the European                                                      ( 97/C 94/25 )
                            Communities
                          ( Case C-45/97)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 97/C 94/24 )                               European Communities by an order of the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court, of 3 September 1996, which was
An action against the Commission of the European                         received at the Court Registry on 6 February 1997, for a
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate
the European Communities on 4 February 1997 by the                       against 1 . E. Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2 . D. J.
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de La                    Feme, on the following questions:
puerta, Abogado del Estado and Head of the Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 1 . Are groups of passengers carried on a single journey
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4—6 boulevard E.                           between an airport and a hotel via, on occasions, a
Servais .                                                                    tourist attraction 'specified categories of passengers'
                                                                              for the purposes of the application of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of Council Regulation 684/92/EEC H ?
— annul          Commission          Decision    96/701 /EC     of       2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
       20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/311 /EC                         to be construed so that the carriage of such passengers
       on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                      on that journey where :
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 94/13
       ( a ) each group is picked up at one point of departure             2 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             and set down at one point of destination                            that Geas itself chose, at the time, to carry out that
             ( including, on occasions, a visit to a tourist                     maintenance using a geyser team specially set up for
             attraction as part of that journey);                                that purpose ?
       ( b ) the same or similar journey is repeated on a                  3 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             number of occasions pursuant to a block                             that the fitters in Geas' geyser team also carried out
             reservation made by a tour operator;                                work on other appliances apart from those belonging
                                                                                to Gavema, occupying in the fitters' estimation 25 %
       (c ) the precise route to be taken is not predetermined;                   of their working time and in that of Gavema 40 % ?
       is a 'special regular service' within the meaning of that           4 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
       Article ?                                                                  that maintenance works on bathroom geysers
                                                                                belonging to Gavema were also carried out by central
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is yes, is Article 4 ( 3 ) of                     heating fitters employed by Geas ?
       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 (2 ) to be
       construed so that the distance of 'the route covered by             ( 1 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
       the service in question' is to be calculated by reference
       to :
       ( a ) each component part of the driver's journey during
             the day;
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
       ( b ) the aggregate of such component parts.                        Cassation, Paris, by judgment of that court of 28 January
                                                                           1997 in the case of La Reunion Europeenne and Others v.
4. If the answer to Question 2 is no, is Article 2 ( 3 ) of                             Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor and Others
       Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 to be construed                                               ( Case C-51/97)
       so that the carriage of such passengers in such                                                    ( 97/C 94/27)
       circumstances is an ' occasional service ' within the
       meaning of that Article ?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas
      common rules for the international carriage of passengers by         sation ( Court of Cassation ), Paris, of 28 January 1997,
      coach and bus ( OJ No L 74, 20 . 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                  which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985            1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La Reunion
      on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to       Europeenne and Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor
      road transport ( OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ).               and Others, on the following questions :
                                                                           1 . ( a ) Is an action by which the consignee of goods
                                                                                found to be damaged on completion of a transport
                                                                                operation by sea and then by land, or by which its
                                                                                insurer who has been subrogated to its rights after
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                             compensating it, seeks redress for the damage
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo, by judgment of that                                 suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the
court of 5 February 1997 in the case of Jan Blauw and                                   maritime transport, not against the person who
                         Others v. Gavema BY                                            issued that document on his headed paper but
                            ( Case C-50/97)                                             against the person whom the plaintiff considered
                                                                                to be the actual maritime carrier, based on the
                              ( 97/C 94/26 )                                            contract of transport and does it, for that or any
                                                                                other reason, fall within the scope of matters
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                         relating to contract within the meaning of Article 5
of the European Communities by judgment of the                                          ( 1 ) of the Convention ?
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo ( District Court,
                                                                                ( b ) If the foregoing question is answered in the
Almelo) of 5 February 1997, which was received at the                                   negative, is the matter one relating to tort, delict
Court Registry on 7 February 1997, for a preliminary                                    or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 )
ruling in the case of Jan Blauw and Others v. Gavema BV                                 of the Convention or is it appropriate to have
on the following questions:                                                             recourse to the principle laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                                the Convention that the courts of the State in
1 . In the light of the finding that Gavema has terminated                              whose territory the defendant is domiciled have
       the maintenance contract with Geas in respect of the                             jurisdiction ?
       geysers leased out by it, and has itself taken over the
       maintenance work relating to those geysers, can that                       (c ) In the event that the matter is to be regarded as
       be said, in principle, to constitute a transfer of part of                       one relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, may the
       an undertaking within the meaning of Directive 77/                               place where the consignee, after completion of the
        187/EEC ( M ?                                                                   maritime transport operation and then the final


title: Case C-307/02: Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against French Republic

text:
C 247/10                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.10.2002
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)     declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar the laws,              —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of                          Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
       25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legis-                       concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
       lation referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of                  in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive
       Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2), or in any event, by                      67/548/EEC, the French Republic failed to fulfil its
       failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the                    obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       that directive;                                                       —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             The obligations flowing from the third paragraph of
                                                                             Article 249 of the EC Treaty includes that of observing the
                                                                             time-limits laid down in directives. That time-limit expired on
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities              1 April 2002 without France having brought into force the
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures               necessary provisions.
necessary for incorporating the directive into domestic law so
that such process is complete within the time-limit laid down,
irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and to inform
                                                                             (1 ) OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70.
the Commission thereof.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom has thus failed
to fulfil its obligations under the directive as regards Gibraltar.
                                                                             Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of
( 1) OJ L 103, 28.4.2000, p. 70.                                             the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
( 2) of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and                                      Luxembourg
     administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging
     and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1
     [SE SER1 71(I) p. 180).                                                                          (Case C-308/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/17)
                                                                             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of the                        ties on 29 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
       European Communities against French Republic                          Communities, represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent,
                                                                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-307/02)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2002/C 247/16)                                    —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
                                                                                concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                       in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 August                          548/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                   —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-296/01: Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
15.9.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                    of such values, as demonstrated by the ordinary procedure
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 18 April                  governed by Article 6 et seq. of the same regulation [and] that
2001 in the case of Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA,                   the said simplified procedure is capable of being applied,
Monsanto Europe S.A., Novartis Seeds SpA, Novartis                     merely because of the need to expedite and simplify adminis-
Seeds AG, Pioneer Hi Bred Italia SpA, Pioneer Overseas                 trative action, for the placing on the market of foods and food
Corporation, Assobiotec — Associazione Nazionale per                   ingredients in respect of which, since their composition
lo Svilupo delle Biotecnologie against Office of the                   includes transgenic proteins, information is not available
President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Health,             covering all the implications for the health of consumers, they
Council of Ministers, President of the Council of Minis-               not having hitherto been used for human consumption to a
ters, Ministry for Community Policies, Istituto Superiore              significant degree, and regarding interaction with the environ-
           di Sanità, Consiglio Superiore di Sanità                    ment, as may be inferred in general from the … Recommen-
                                                                       dation of [21 July] 1997?
                       (Case C-236/01)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 43 of 14.2.1997, p. 1.
                       (2001/C 259/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 April 2001 by
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional             Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Commission of
Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at the Court           the European Communities against the French Republic
Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA, Monsanto Europe S.A.,                                       (Case C-296/01)
Novartis Seeds SpA, Novartis Seeds AG, Pioneer Hi Bred
Italia SpA, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Assobiotec —
Associazione Nazionale per lo Svilupo delle Biotecnologie                                       (2001/C 259/02)
against Office of the President of the Council of Ministers,
Ministry of Health, Council of Ministers, President of the
Council of Ministers, Ministry for Community Policies, Istituto        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Superiore di Sanità, Consiglio Superiore di Sanità, on the             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
following questions:                                                   2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by G. zur Hausen, action as Agent, and M.H. van
                                                                       der Woude and V. Landes, avocats, with an address for service
                                                                       in Luxembourg.
Is Article 5 of Regulation [No 258/97/EC (1) valid in relation
to] Articles [153 and 174 EC] and the principles of pro-
portionality and reasonableness [despite the fact that] it does        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
not provide for complete assessment of the safety of foods and         the Court should:
food ingredients in relation to risks to human health and the
environment and does not guarantee the informed partici-               —     declare that, by failing the transpose correctly or com-
pation of the Member States and the appropriate scientific                   pletely Articles 5(1), (2), (3) and (4), 6(2) and (5), 9(3),
bodies whose involvement is conductive to the safeguarding                   11(1), (2), (3) and (6), 12(3) and (4) and 19(2), (3) and (4)
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.9.2001
      of Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, as amended,              —    contrary to the argument put forward by the French
      on the deliberate release into the environment of geneti-               authorities, Article 6(5) of the directive must be the
      cally modified organisms (1), the French Republic has                   subject of a measure transposing it even as regards sectors
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and               where the competent national authority is part of the
      Article 249 of the EC Treaty;                                           State administration and not a public institution;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         —    the information available to the Commission does not
                                                                              demonstrate that procedures or organisational rules
                                                                              enabling Article 9(3) of the directive to be duly applied
                                                                              have been enacted in French law;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —    Article 11(1) and Annexes II and III have been only partly
                                                                              transposed;
The obligation on a Member State to take all the measures
necessary to achieve the results prescribed by a directive is a
binding obligation. The period laid down in Article 23 of
Directive 90/220/EEC expired on 23 October 1991 and                      —    with the exception of two sector-based orders, the
transposition is still incomplete so far as concerns the following            provisions referred to by the French authorities as
points:                                                                       transposing Article 11(2) and (3) of the directive do not
                                                                              set out with the necessary precision the matters which
                                                                              the notifier must include in his notification dossier;
—     the reagents sector is not covered by any of the numerous
      measures for transposing the directive; in particular, it is
      excluded from the scope of Decree 96-850 which appears             —    the obligation resulting from the first indent of
      designed to sweep up the cases not covered by specific                  Article 11(6) of the directive is not reproduced expressly
      legislative measures;                                                   in any of the sector-based decrees. Informing the com-
                                                                              petent authority and revising the information and con-
                                                                              ditions are referred to by the directive as complementary,
—     Article 11 of Law 92-654 which makes any deliberate                     but separate, obligations; they must accordingly be trans-
      release subject to prior authorization has not been                     posed expressly and separately;
      supplemented, for all sectors, by legally binding pro-
      visions concerning the dossier to be submitted (incom-
      plete transposition of Article 5(2) of the directive and
      Annex II thereto as amended);                                      —    Article 12(3) and (4) of the directive sets out the details
                                                                              of a procedure under which the national administrative
                                                                              bodies are empowered to communicate with the Com-
                                                                              mission. It is thus necessary for national law to set out
—     while Article 5(3) of the directive certainly gives the
                                                                              for those authorities the legal framework within which
      competent authority some ‘latitude’ when authorizing
                                                                              they operate;
      release, that discretion does not belong to the Member
      States when transposing the directive but to the com-
      petent authorities at the time of notification. In order for
      those authorities to be able to have the option offered by         —    the Commission has not received notification of any
      Article 5(3), it is necessary for that provision to be                  measure intended to transpose Article 13(2) and (4) of
      transposed into national law;                                           the directive;
—     Article 5(4) of the directive has not been transposed,
                                                                         —    Article 19(2) of the directive has not been transposed by
      except so far as concerns certain orders. In referring to
                                                                              provisions capable of creating a situation that is suf-
      orders which are being prepared, the French authorities
                                                                              ficiently precise, clear and transparent to enable individ-
      admit the failure to transpose the directive;
                                                                              uals to be aware of their rights and obligations. Article 21
                                                                              of Law 92-654 fails to require the notifier to provide
                                                                              verifiable justification in support of a request for confi-
—     the decrees transposing the directive provide that author-              dentiality;
      ization is deemed to be refused if there has been no
      decision on expiry of the period of 90 days laid down in
      Article 6(2) of the directive. In that case, reasons are
      clearly not given for the refusal by the competent                 —    neither Law 92-654 nor the sector-based decrees (with the
      authority. Even supposing that the reasons for refusal are              exception of Decree 94-359 relating to plant protection
      disclosed to the notifier subsequently, the time-limit of               products) lay down the obligations, prescribed by
      90 days laid down by the directive cannot complied with                 Article 19(3) of the directive, to consult the notifier and
      in that way;                                                            to inform him once a decision has been taken;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.9.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/3
—     since the French authorities have intended to implement          The Commission also considers that the enactment of a
      the requirements flowing from Article 19(4) of the               transitional period after the date of expiry of the time-limit for
      directive by means of a ‘public information sheet’, it is        transposition of the directive is contrary to the obligations
      imperative for the sheet to include all the matters              under that directive.
      mentioned in that provision as incapable of being kept
      confidential.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
                                                                       Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-302/01)
                         (Case C-301/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/04)
                         (2001/C 259/03)
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July            represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos               Legal Service.
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
Legal Service.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                           —     declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
                                                                             ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in the
—     declare that, by restricting the extent of public infor-               commune of Epitalio without endangering human health,
      mation to the environmental impact study, laying down                  without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals and
      a period for public consultation which cannot exceed                   without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, by
      15 days and providing for a transitional period which                  granting a permit for the operation of a waste disposal
      expired in October 1994, the Hellenic Republic has failed              (landfill) site which does not contain the necessary
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 (2) and 12 of               information and by allowing that facility to operate
      Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the                without prior approval of an environmental impact study,
      assessment of the effects of certain public and private                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      projects on the environment;                                           under Articles 4 and 9 of Council Directive
                                                                             75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Directive
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          91/156/EEC, and Article 4 (2) of Council Directive
                                                                             85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
                                                                             effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                             environment;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 6 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment provides that all the information gathered by the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
developer is to be made available to the public. Article 2 (2) of
Joint Ministerial Decision 75308/5512/90 provides for public
access to the environmental impact study only and to no other          Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, provides that
information. The directive also provides that the Member               the Member States are to take the necessary measures to
States are to ensure that the public concerned is given the            protect human health and the environment from the harmful
opportunity to express an opinion before works begin. The              effects of the collection, transport, treatment, storage and
Commission takes the view that the period of 15 days set by            deposit of waste. Article 9 requires in addition that a permit
the joint ministerial decision is not in practice a reasonable         be granted by the competent authorities for every waste
period for the public to express its opinion.                          disposal installation.


Important legal notice

|

E1998P0004

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court) by decision of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS (Case E-4/98)

Official Journal C 331 , 29/10/1998 P. 0024 - 0025

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court) by decision of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS (Case E-4/98) (98/C 331/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 14 May 1998 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1998, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS, on the following questions:1. Is it incompatible with Article 4 of the EEA Agreement for national procedural rules to empower a Norwegian court to decide, at the request of a defendant, that a company with its place of business (domicile) in an EEA country other than Norway must provide security for costs when it brings an action against a company with its place of business (domicile) in Norway, when such provision of security cannot be required from legal persons with their place of business (domicile) in Norway?2. If such a requirement is not, as a starting proposition, compatible with the EEA Agreement, is Article 4 of the EEA Agreement none the less to be interpreted to the effect that a requirement for provision of security for costs can be justified (proportional) on the basis of the intended purposes and objective


title: Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-242/96)

text:
No C 294/2              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 10 . 96
      the field of technical standards and regulations, as               11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic, represented by Prof.
      amended by Council Directive 88/1 82/EEC of                        Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Maurizio
      22 March 1 988, is not applicable to national rules on the         Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
      closing times of shops such as those at issue in the main          Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue
      proceedings.                                                       Marie-Adelaide .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
      OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
      OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should : annul
                                                                         Commission Decision 96/311 /EC of 10 April 1996 to the
                                                                         extent to which, in clearing the accounts submitted by the
                                                                         Italian Republic for expenditure for 1992 , it declares that
                                                                         the total sum of Lit 108 850 076 808 is not chargeable to
                                                                         the EAGGF .
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
               (Third Chamber ) of 11 July 1996
in Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of                  Main pleas in law and arguments adduced in support
                 the European Communities ( ! )
(Appeal — Official — Res judicata — Appeal clearly                       — Public storage of beef and veal; special inquiries finding
                                unfounded)                                    ( a ) inadequacy of controls and ( b ) purchase of
                             ( 96/C 294/02 )                                 non-permitted goods : Lit 54 927 174 194
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             The Italian Republic contests the fixed-rate reduction of
                                                                              10 % and in any event maintains that the discretionary
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 power to make a fixed-rate adjustment was exercised in
           published in the European Court Reports)                           breach of the rules of conduct laid down in part C of
                                                                              Annex 2 to the Guidelines ( Doc . VI/216/93-F.R. of
In Case C-397/95 P: Dimitrios Coussios ( represented by                       2 June 1993 ). If the discretionary power to determine a
Georgios Sakellaropoulos ) — appeal against the order of the                  fixed-rate amendment had been exercised fairly, the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                           figure arrived at would have been 5 % .
( Fourth Chamber ) of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94
Coussios v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-723 , seeking to
have that order set aside , the other party to the proceedings           — Public storage of beef and veal , irregular auction
being the Commission of the European Communities                              procedures for the sale of intervention meat: Lit
( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira , assisted by Denis                           7 104 000 000
Waelbroeck ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of:
J. - P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D.                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 expressly prohibits the
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                              submision of more than one tender for the contract for
Registrar, has made the following order on 11 July                            public storage by any one person . The AIMA has always
 1996 :                                                                       observed that provision and the tenders received were
                                                                              found to have been submitted by companies with
 1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                                 different identities and names . It is normal practice in
                                                                              Italy for producers' associations to undertake on behalf
                                                                              of their members all dealings with public bodies ( AIMA,
2 . Mr Coussios is ordered to pay the costs of the present                    foreign trade, Ministry of Finance, etc .). Those
       proceedings.                                                           procedures do not detract from the secrecy of the tenders
                                                                              and do not provide a means of etablishing a syndicate . In
 (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                              other words, the association merely acts as a
                                                                               'postman'.
                                                                         — Inadequate administration and control of premiums for
                                                                               sheep and goats : Lit 34 175 522 595
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Italian Republic
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case C-242/96                                     The Italian Republic, without examining the merits of
                                                                               each case, states that in most of the cases covered by the
                              ( 96/C 294/03 )                                  inspection, the discrepancies are attributable to
                                                                               insufficient training of the staff assigned to the checks
 An action against the Commission of the European                              and lack of familiarity with the rules . The regions have
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                        given an assurance that they are prepared to give the
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 10. 96            I EN |              Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 294/3
     inspectors better training and appropriate national rules           The financial adjustment equal to 10 % of the expenses
     have been issued regarding inspections ( Circular No 4 in           paid to specialized traders and other independent
     GURI ( Official Gazette ) No 74 of 30 March 1993 ). The             warehouses between the start of the year and
     initiatives taken by the Italian Government should result           31 December 1992 is unlawful . The periods taken into
     in fixed-rate deductions at the lowest level permitted ,            account by the European Commission coincide with
     rather than the maximum ( 10% ).                                    transitional periods attributable initially to the transfer
                                                                         of the duties of the Sugar Stabilization Board to the
                                                                         AIMA and then to the cessation of the inspection
— Public storage of cereals, fixed-rate reduction following              activities of the UTIF — offices dealing with
     inquiries : Lit 10 082 336 246                                      manufacturing tax — concerning the production and
                                                                         movement of sugar at the so-called in-plant warehouses
                                                                         of the sugar companies .
    The Italian intervention agency does not have its own
     facilities for storage of the products delivered for that
    purpose and therefore has to rely on the cooperation of              As regards specialized traders, as beneficiaries of
    outside operators in order to implement intervention                 Community payments, a particularly far-reaching and
    measures . That task is entrusted to contractors, subject            strict system has been introduced , involving, inter alia,
    to the limitations of the individual warehouses on the list          heavy penalties merely for delay in sending
    or those authorized by the AIMA, under specific                      accompanying documents to the fraud prevention
    contracts laying down the conditions for provision of                offices . Moreover, in view of the close connection
    the service during the marketing year. In the recent past,           between the expenses paid out and charged to the
    contractors have not always carried out the tasks                    EAGGF budget and the contributions paid by the sugar
    assigned to them properly, to such an extent that serious            traders into the same EAGGF budget, the rejection of the
    management irregularities have been discovered .                     accounts in respect of warehousing is incompatible with
    Therefore , the AIMA is reviewing the rules applicable to            acceptance of the accounts in respect of the
    contractors in order to bring them more into line with               contributions paid by the beneficiaries .
    the Community regulations and the requirements
    indicated from time to time by Commission officials . In
    view of the fact that the Italian intervention agency has
    substantially amended the operating rules for public
    storage of cereals, to take account of the observations
    and comments made by the Commission officials, it is
    considered that the fixed-rate financial adjustment at the       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
    maximum levels of 10 and 5 % is excessive .                      Lorrach by order of that court of 28 November 1995 in the
                                                                     case of Horst Ziemann v. Firma Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH
                                                                               and Firma Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst
— Removal of land from production on multiannual basis :
    Lit 2 169 762 753                                                                        Case C-247/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/04 )
    In the Commission 's opinion, the practice of following
    —r an agricultural practice known as ' aridocoltura ',           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    based on alternating with the normal production of               European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht
    crops, over cycles of three or four years , periods which        Lorrach ( Labour Court, Lorrach ) of 28 November 1995 ,
    are often shorter than a cultivation year, in which the         which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1996 ,
    land is ploughed, sometimes more than once, in order to          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Horst Ziemann v.
    improve its capacity to take in and retain water, thereby        Firma Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Firma Horst Bohn
    increasing the reserves available — cannot render the            Sicherheitsdienst on the following questions :
    land eligible for set-aside aid since that very practice
    involved 'technical idle-time'; essentially, it would make
                                                                     1 . Do Article 1(1 ) and Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive
    no sense to pay for non-use of land which in the
                                                                         77/l87/EEC ( 1 ) also apply to the transfer of part of a
    reference year was merely ploughed ( sometimes more
                                                                         business, such as the task of guarding a military
    than once ) but had not been used for any crop . On the
                                                                         installation , where there is no direct legal transfer
    basis of those considerations, a financial adjustment was
                                                                         between        successor     contractors      ( surveillance
    made at the rate of 10 % of the expenditure allowed for
                                                                         undertakings )?
    Sicily in respect of 1992 . However, the practice of
    traditional fallowing has been superseded in recent years
    and in any event since the 1987/1988 year ( the reference       2 . Is that at any rate the case if, on termination of the
    year ) by a different type of fallowing known as ' dressed           contract, the part of the business reverts to the body
    fallowing', involving recourse to cultivated autumn and              awarding the contract, which then immediately enters
    spring crops, for early harvesting, such as leguminous               into a contract for services with a succesor that contains
    forage crops, broad beans , chickpeas, potatoes, etc .               essentially the same standard conditions ?
— Reimbursement of sugar storage expenditure : Lit                   3 . Is there at any rate a transfer of a business within the
    391 281 020                                                          meaning of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/187/EEC if


title: Judgment of the court (Sixth Chamber) 18 March 2004 —In Case C-314/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt):Siemens AG Österreich, ARGE Telekom & Partner vHauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger (Public contracts— Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures concerning the award of publiccontracts — Effects of a decision by the body responsible for review proceduresannulling the decision by the contracting authority not to revoke the procedureby which a contract was awarded — Restriction on the use of subcontracting)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   18 March 2004
   In Case C-314/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Siemens AG Österreich, ARGE Telekom & Partner v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger (1)

   (Public contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Effects of a decision by the body responsible for review procedures annulling the decision by the contracting authority not to revoke the procedure by which a contract was awarded - Restriction on the use of subcontracting)
   (2004/C 106/04)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-314/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Siemens AG Österreich, ARGE Telekom & Partner and Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; Joined party: Bietergemeinschaft EDS/ORGA, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, and in particular Articles 1(1) and 2(7) thereof, must be construed as meaning that, in the case where a clause in an invitation to tender is incompatible with Community rules on public contracts, the national legal systems of the Member States must provide for the possibility of relying on that incompatibility in the review procedures referred to in Directive 89/665.

      (1)  OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case T-153/16: Order of the General Court of 10 February 2017 — Acerga v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters — Association — No individual concern — Act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/36

         Order of the General Court of 10 February 2017 — Acerga v Council
   (Case T-153/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters - Association - No individual concern - Act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 112/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación de armadores de cerco de Galicia (Acerga) (Sada, Spain) (represented by: B. Huarte Melgar, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (OJ 2016 L 22, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

               3.

               Asociación de armadores de cerco de Galicia (Acerga) shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


               18.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/20

         Swearing in of the new Members of the Court
   (2006/C 42/06)
   Mr Bay Larsen and Ms Sharpston, appointed Judge and Advocate General respectively to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 20 July 2005 and 14 October 2005 (1), took the oath before the Court on 10 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 204, 5.8.2005, p. 11, and L 279, 22.10.2005, p. 70.


title: Case C-215/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer

text:
28.7.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 212/17
—      Failure to implement Article 9 of the directive: Until          professionnelle (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court of
       Germany has adopted provisions for the implementation           Justice of the European Communities on 25 May 2001 by
       of Article 6 and Article 7, there are inevitably no             Michel Hendrickx, represented by J.N. Louis and V. Peere, with
       provisions regarding the procedures for circulating the         an address for service in Luxembourg.
       information and those to whom the information is to be
       addressed.
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.                                        set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                       of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 (Michel Hendrickx v
                                                                       CEDEFOP) (1);
                                                                       then, itself giving judgment on the basis of new provisions:
                                                                       —     grant the appellant leave to amend his pleas in law and
                                                                             submissions;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in                 in the alternative,
      the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer
                                                                       —     hold that the decision of the Director of CEDEFOP of
                                                                             14 November 2000 was taken by an incompetent
                        (Case C-215/01)                                      authority;
                        (2001/C 212/29)                                —     consequently, annul that decision and also CEDEFOP’s
                                                                             implied decision rejecting the appellant’s claim for pay-
                                                                             ment of a (re-)installation allowance corresponding to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       two months’ basic salary;
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Augsburg
of 26 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 23 May          —     order the defendant to pay the appellant the sum of
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the matter of a fine on Bruno              FEB 316 292, plus default interest at 7 % per annum
Schnitzer on the following question:                                         from 22 July 1999, and to pay the costs of both sets of
                                                                             proceedings.
Is it compatible with EC law on the free movement of services
for a Portuguese undertaking, which in its country of origin
fulfils the conditions for carrying on a commercial activity, to
have to satisfy further — albeit purely formal — conditions (in        Pleas in law and main arguments
this case registration on the Skilled Trades Register), in order
to carry on that activity in Germany not just on a short-term
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance erred in law in deciding that
basis but for a longer period?
                                                                             CEDEFOP had granted the appellant’s claim, whereas the
                                                                             decision of 14 November 2000 is a non-existent decision
                                                                             adopted by an incompetent authority: the Director of
                                                                             CEDEFOP could not lawfully determine the appellant’s
                                                                             claim, since the matter had been referred to the Appeals
                                                                             Board;
                                                                       —     (In the alternative) The Court of First Instance erred in
Appeal brought on 25 May 2001 by Michel Hendrickx                            law since, by not granting the appellant leave to amend
against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the Fifth                         his submissions and pleas in law, it did not allow him to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                       bring before the Community judicature the dispute
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hend-                            between himself and CEDEFOP over, first, the fixing of
rickx and the Centre européen pour le développement de                       the (re-)installation allowance to which he was entitled as
           la formation professionnelle (CEDEFOP)                            a result of being reassigned to the Council in Brussels
                                                                             and, second, the reimbursement of a sum allegedly paid
                                                                             in error in connection with the installation allowance
                       (Case C-217/01 P)                                     paid to him when he took up his post in Thessalonika.
                        (2001/C 212/30)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001, p. 18.
An appeal against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hendrickx and
the Centre européen pour le développement de la formation


title: Case C-178/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2014  — Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 April 2014 — Vario Tek GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-178/14)
   2014/C 223/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vario Tek GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the fact that a video camera has no zoom function preclude its classification under subheading 8525 80 9 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, both amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? (1)

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a video camera recorder able to record sound and images taken by the camera within the meaning of CN subheading 8525 80 91 solely by virtue of the fact that a video or audio file can be copied, via a USB port on the camera, from another device to the interchangeable storage medium required to operate the camera, even though those files cannot be viewed or listened to with the camera alone?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1.