title: Action brought on 29 October 1998 by José Cuenda Guijarro and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-179/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 397/33
by Dr Rolf Wägenbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  infringement of the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                grade-related aspects of intelectual property rights).
Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                    (1) Case T-175/98 Una Film GmbH v. Parliament and Council.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1. annul Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament
    and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                        Action brought on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
    approximation of the laws, regulations and                      Guijarro and Others against the Council of the European
    administrative provisions of the Member States                                               Union
    relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco                                  (Case T-179/98)
    products (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9), at least in so far
    as it prohibits or hinders sponsorship and advertising                                   (98/C 397/65)
    in respect of marks which were also used in
    advertising for products other than tobacco products
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    before 30 July 1998;
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2. order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                    Communities on 29 October 1998 by JoseÂ Cuenda
                                                                    Guijarro, Eva Hellgren, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, Hans
                                                                    Lund, Daniel Marlier, Maria Augusta Santos, Agneta
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Sederowsky, NoeÂ Youssouroum and Jacqueline Willems,
                                                                    all residing in Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis
                                                                    and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
The applicants are companies incorporated under Swiss               Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessante.
law. The first applicant is the owner of the rights to the
Davidoff' trade mark outside the tobacco sector and
awards licences workwide for diversification products               The applicants claim that the Court should:
under the Davidoff' and associated marks. The second
applicant is the owner of the rights to the Davidoff' mark
with respect to tobacco products, including smokers'                Ð annul the Council's decision of 12 January 1998;
articles such as lighters etc.
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
While originally only tobacco products were marketed
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
under the Davidoff' mark, now a variety of diversification
products, generally produced under licence, such as
cosmetics, spirits, leather goods, ties, watches, spectacles        The applicants, who are officials of the Council of the
etc. are also marketed under that mark. In the applicants'          European Union, noted faults, omissions, poor
submission, there is a significant difference between the           workmanship and defects affecting the Justus Lipsius
advertisements for tobacco and those for the other                  Building where they work.
diversification products, and the latter do not give rise to
any associations with Davidoff' tobacco products.
                                                                    After taking numerous informal steps, they made a formal
                                                                    request for:
The applicants submit that they rely on the licences
continuing to be able to advertise the licensed products, in        Ð the appointment of an expert, chosen by agreement
order to be able to ensure the continued existence of the                with the representatives of the staff, and instructed,
Davidoff' diversification products and the jobs associated              after having access to all documents relating to the
therewith.                                                               Justus Lipsius Building, to report all faults and
                                                                         deficiencies affecting the building and jeopardising the
                                                                         safety of staff and visitors, indicate the appropriate
                                                                         remedial work and check the proper performance of
As regards the law, the applicants rely on similar                       that work;
arguments to those which have already been put forward
in Case T-175/98 (1). As additional pleas in law, however,
they also put forward misuse of discretion, breach of other         Ð an undertaking to carry out or have carried out all the
fundamental rights (freedom of the press, right to one's                 work specified by the above expert with a view to
name as an emanation of the right of personality, right to               bringing the building into proper state in accordance
equal treatment, freedom to carry on a profession) and                   with the expert's report;
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/34             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
Ð the putting in order, without delay, of the Justus                     corresponding to two thirds of the installation
    Lipsius Building so that it conforms with the                        allowance paid upon her entry into service;
    requirements of the Community and Belgian laws and
    regulations;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð the adoption of effective information and training                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    measures for staff with respect to safety.
                                                                    On 1 April 1997 the applicant entered in the service of
That request was expressly rejected by a decision of                CEDEFOP, pursuant to a contract of two years' duration,
12 January 1998.                                                    as a member of its temporary staff, in order to work as a
                                                                    grade C 5 secretary. She was paid an installation
The applicant point out that the Council is obliged, as             allowance pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Conditions of
employer, to guarantee the safety, health and quality of            employment of other servants of the European
environment of its officials at their place of work.                Communities.
In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single         By letter of 28 January 1998, the Commission offered her
plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and                a position as a typist in DG XI. Having accepted that
assistance, infringement of the building regulations of the         offer, the applicant gave to the defendant, by note dated
Brussels conurbation, infringement of the rules on safety,          31 January 1998, notice of her intention to terminate her
protection of health and quality of the environment at              employment, in accordance with Article 8 of her contract.
places of work, and manifest error of assessment.                   The two-month period covered by that notice commenced
                                                                    on 1 February 1998 and ended on 31 March 1998. The
                                                                    applicant took up her duties in DG XI on 1 April 1998.
                                                                    In support of her case, the applicant maintains that she
                                                                    has worked without interruption in the service of the
                                                                    Communities since 1 April 1997. She claims that, by
                                                                    deciding to proceed to recover two thirds of the
Action brought on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim               installation allowance paid upon her entry into service, the
against the European Centre for Development of                      defendant has infringed Article 5(5) of Annex VII of the
              Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)                         Staff Rergulations. In taking the view that, by moving
                      (Case T-180/98)                               from CEDEFOP to the Commission, the applicant had
                       (98/C 397/66)                                voluntarily left the service of the Communities, the
                                                                    defendant committed a manifest error of assessment,
               (Language of the case: French)                       having regard to its legal status and to the task assigned
                                                                    to it.
An action against the European Centre for Development
                                                                    The applicant considers that the retention by the
of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before
                                                                    Commission of two thirds of the installation allowance
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                    paid to her is contrarty to Article 85 of the Staff
on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim, residing at
                                                                    Regulations, having regard to the defendant's standard
Winkelse (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and
                                                                    practice, agreed with the Commission, of paying the
FrancËoise Permentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                    whole of the installation allowance to its staff upon their
for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                    recruitment.
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                    In the alternative, the applicant maintains that, according
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    to Article 5(5) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, the
                                                                    defendant has acted unlawfully in demanding
Ð annul CEDEFOP's decision of 9 March 1998 requiring                reimbursement of over half of the installation allowance
    the applicant to repay the sum of BEF 50 102,                   paid to her.


title: Case T-229/10: Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Graf-Syteco v OHIM — Teco Electric & Machinery (SYTECO)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/28

         Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Graf-Syteco v OHIM — Teco Electric & Machinery (SYTECO)
   (Case T-229/10)
   2010/C 195/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Graf-Syteco Gmbh & Co. KG (Tuningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Kieser, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd (Taipai, Taiwan)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2010 in Case R 230/2009-1 so as to reject opposition No B 1 112 889 of 5 February 2007 based on the German figurative word mark No 30 327 439, the British and Northern Irish figurative word mark No 233 226, the Benelux figurative word mark No 742 535 and the Spanish figurative word mark No 2 545 860 TECO;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2010 in Case R 230/2009-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SYTECO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 37 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Four national figurative marks which include the element ‘TECO’, for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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


title: Case C-11/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 January 2015 — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český Rozhlas

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 13 January 2015 — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Český Rozhlas
   (Case C-11/15)
   (2015/C 138/37)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Respondent: Český Rozhlas

      Question referred

   Can public sector broadcasting, financed by compulsory statutory charges of the amount set by the law, on the basis of ownership of a radio receiver, possession thereof or entitlement to use it on other legal grounds, be regarded as the ‘provision of a service against payment’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, which must be exempted from VAT in accordance with Article 13A(1)(q) of that directive, or is it a non-economic activity which is not subject to VAT at all under Article 2 of the Sixth Directive, and to which exemption from VAT in accordance with Article 13A(1)(q) of that directive does not therefore apply?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Case T-144/98: Dino Cantoreggi v European Parliament (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative merits)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 102/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 December 1999
                    of 16 December 1999
                                                                          in Case T-144/98: Dino Cantoreggi v European Parlia-
in Case T-143/98: Michael Cendrowicz v Commission of                                                      ment (1)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative
(Officials — Appointments — Determination of the level at                                                 merits)
which posts are to be filled — Vacancy notice — Con-
   sideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/46)
                        (2000/C 102/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)                          In Case T-144/98: Dino Cantoreggi, an official of the European
                                                                          Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
In Case T-143/98: Michael Cendrowicz, an official of the                  European Parliament (Agents: Yannis Pantalis and Denis
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                    Waelbroeck), supported by N, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
Marc-Alber Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service           and Greta-Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, and Cathy
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 Rue             Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
de Cessange, against Commission of the European Communi-                  Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 49 Boulevard Royal —
ties (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieu-              application for annulment of a refusal of promotion — the
sart-Clotuche) — application for, first, annulment of the                 Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
decision of the Commission appointing Carlos Camino to post               A. Potocki, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
COM/98/97 as Head of Unit 1 ‘India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka’             J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
in Directorate C of Directorate-General 1B, of the decision               a judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:
rejecting his application for that post and, in so far as
necessary, the decision rejecting his claim for damages and,
secondly, a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance               1. Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 12 February,
(Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,                     25 February and 22 June 1998, respectively appointing N to
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a                   the post of head of the Buildings Management Division, rejecting
judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:                                     the application of the applicant for that post and rejecting the
                                                                               applicant’s complaint;
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                          2. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                               the applicant’s costs;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          3. Orders N, as intervener, to bear his own costs.
(1) OJ C 340 of 1998.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.


title: Case C-436/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Mons — Belgium) — Belgian State v BLM SA (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a), and Article 13(B)(b) — Right of deduction — Business assets which belong to a taxable person which is a legal person and which are placed at the disposal of its staff for their private use)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Mons — Belgium) — Belgian State v BLM SA
   (Case C-436/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a), and Article 13(B)(b) - Right of deduction - Business assets which belong to a taxable person which is a legal person and which are placed at the disposal of its staff for their private use)
   2012/C 151/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel, Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

      Defendant: BLM SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons — Interpretation of point (a) of the first paragraph of Articles 6(2) and Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1) — Capital asset made available and given over in part for private use by the director of a legal person and his family, where the input tax on that asset is deductible — Exclusion of the right to deduct tax

      Operative part of the judgment

   Point (a) of the first paragraph of Articles 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which — despite the fact that the characteristics of the leasing or the letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) are not present — treats as a supply of services exempt from VAT under that provision the private use, by the staff of a taxable person which is a legal person, of part of a building constructed or owned by virtue of a right in rem in immovable property, held by that taxable person, where the input tax on that business asset is deductible;
   It is for the referring court to determine whether, in a situation such as that at issue in the case before it, a finding can be made that there is a letting of immoveable property for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case C-399/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia): Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di Milano et Lodi v Comune di Milano (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — National legislation under which the holder of building or planning permission may execute infrastructure works directly in lieu of tax — National legislation permitting the public authorities to negotiate directly with an individual the terms of administrative acts concerning him)

text:
29.9.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 275/3
1.   Article 22(1)(c) and (i) of Council Regulation (EEC)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of socia1
     security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons                                  (Sixth Chamber)
     and to members of their families moving within the Community,
     in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation                                          of 12 July 2001
     (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be interpreted as
     meaning that, when an insured person has been authorised by            in Case C-399/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
     the competent institution to go to another Member State for            from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
     treatment, the institution of the place where the treatment is         Lombardia): Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di
     provided is required to provide him with benefits in kind in                       Milano et Lodi v Comune di Milano (1)
     accordance with the rules on assumption of the costs of health
     care which the latter administers, as if the person concerned          (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — National
     were registered with it.                                               legislation under which the holder of building or planning
                                                                            permission may execute infrastructure works directly in
     Where the request of an insured person for authorisation on the        lieu of tax — National legislation permitting the public
     basis of Article 22(1) (c) of that regulation as been refused by       authorities to negotiate directly with an individual the terms
     the competent institution and it is subsequently established that                   of administrative acts concerning him)
     such refusal was unfounded, the person concerned is entitled to
     be reimbursed directly by the competent institution by an                                        (2001/C 275/05)
     amount equivalent to that which would have been borne by the
     institution of the place of stay under the rules laid down by the                          (Language of the case: Italian)
     legislation applied by the latter institution if authorisation had
     been properly granted in the first place.                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     As Article 22 of that regulation is not intended to regulate any
     reimbursement at the tariffs in force in the Member State of           In Case C-399/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     registration, it does not have the effect of preventing or             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
     prescribing payment by that State of additional reimbursement          Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Admin-
     covering the difference between the system of cover laid down by       istrative Court of Lombardy) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
     the legislation of that State and the system applied by the            the proceedings pending before that court between Ordine
     Member State of stay, where the former is more advantageous            degli Architetti delle Province di Milano et Lodi, Piero De
     than the latter and such reimbursement is provided for by the          Amicis, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Leopoldo Freyrie
     legislation of the Member State of registration.                       and Comune di Milano, Interveners: Pirelli SpA, Milano
                                                                            Centrale Servizi SpA, Fondazione Teatro alla Scala, formerly
     Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49          Ente Autonomo Teatro alla Scala — on the interpretation of
     EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, if the reimbursement         Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
     of costs incurred on hospital services provided in a Member            coordination of procedures far the award of public works
     State of stay, calculated under the rules in force in that State, is   contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
     less than the amount which application of the legislation in           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
     force in the Member State of registration would afford to a            ris (Rapporteur), J-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
     person receiving hospital treatment in that State, additional          Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
     reimbursement covering that difference must be granted to the          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, the
     insured person by the competent institution.                           operative part of which is as follows:
2.   Article 36 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended            Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
     and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, cannot be interpreted            coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts
     as meaning that it follows from that provision that a covered          precludes national urban development legislation under which, in
     person who has requested authorisation on the basis of                 disregard of the procedures laid down in the Directive, the holder of a
     Article 22(1)(c) of that regulation and been refused by the            building permit or planning permission may execute an infrastructure
     competent institution is entitled to reimbursement of all the          work directly, in return for exemption, wholly or in art, from the
     medical costs which he incurred in the Member State in which           charge payable upon such permission being granted, in cases where
     he received treatment once it is established that the rejection of     the value of that work is not less than the ceiling fixed by the
     his request for authorisation was unfounded.                           Directive.
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


title: Case C-548/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 1(r) — Definition of ‘periods of insurance’ — Article 46 — Calculation of retirement pension — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration — Frontier workers — Period of incapacity for work — Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States — No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance — Residence requirement — Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
   (Case C-548/11) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 1(r) - Definition of ‘periods of insurance’ - Article 46 - Calculation of retirement pension - Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration - Frontier workers - Period of incapacity for work - Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States - No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance - Residence requirement - Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)
   2013/C 164/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edgard Mulders

      Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1(r) and 46 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Old-age and death insurance — Calculation of benefits — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(r) and 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in the light of Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation and Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU, are to be interpreted, for the purpose of calculating a retirement pension in one Member State, as precluding the legislation of another Member State under which a period of incapacity for work during which sickness insurance benefit — from which contributions were deducted by way of old-age insurance — was paid in that other Member State to a migrant worker is not regarded as a ‘period of insurance’ within the meaning of those provisions, on the ground that the person concerned is not resident in the latter State and/or was in receipt of a similar benefit under the legislation of the first Member State, which could not be combined with the sickness insurance benefit.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-439/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Yellow Window v EIGE

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/15

         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Yellow Window v EIGE
   (Case T-439/17)
   (2017/C 338/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yellow Window (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 assessing not successful the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and subsequent decisions to assess the bid of another tenderer successful and to award the contract to it;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant as well as an interest of 8 % or in the alternative to award a compensation as well as a compensation of 8 %;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle of transparency, of the principle to act with a certain care, of the duty to respect confidentiality as well as alleging manifest error of appraisal.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds, infringement of the principle of proportionality while assessing the applicant's tender.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a good administration.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 November 1995 in Case T-64/94: Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Occupational disease - Partial permanent invalidity - Principle of sound management and good administration - Duty to provide assistance - Misuse of powers - Action for compensation)

text:
20 . 1 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 16/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                             accrued before dismissal where a different benefit
circondariale di Venezia by order of that court of                              ( namely the mobility allowance provided for by
3 November 1995 in the cases of Federica Maso and Others                        Articles 4 and 16 of Italian Law No 223 of 23 July 1991 )
and Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto nazionale                          covers the needs of workers remaining employed during
                 délia previdenza sociale (INPS )                               the months following dismissal ?
                           ( Case C-3 73/95 )
                                                                         4 . Must the expression 'the last three months of the
                              ( 96/C 16/23 )
                                                                                contract of employment' in Article 4 ( 2 ) be interpreted
                                                                                as the 'last three calendar months ' or 'three months
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Pretura                                    preceding the termination of the employment
circondariale di Venezia ( District Magistrates' Court,                         relationship, even if this occurred on a date occurring
Venice ) of 3 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry                    some time during the month'.
on 29 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases
of Federica Maso and Others and Graziano Gazzetta and                    ( J ) Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v .
                                                                               Italian State ( 1991 ) ECR 1-5357.
Others v. Istituto Nazionale délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS
                                                                         (2 ) OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .
— National Social Welfare Institution ) on the following
questions:
1 . can the system of the EC Treaty, as described in the
     judgment in Francovich and Others v. Italian State f 1 ),
     concerning the liability to individuals of a Member State           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     which has breached Community obligations be                         Genova, Sezione prima civile, by order of that court of
     interpreted as being compatible with a domestic rule                16 November 1995 in the case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio
     ( Article 2 ( 7 ) in conjunction with Article 2 (4 ) of Italian             SRL v . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
     Legislative Decree No 80 of 27 January 1992 ), which                                             Case C-3 76/95 )
     reduces ex post facto the amount of the compensation
     for damage which has already occurred ?                                                           ( 96/C 16/24 )
2 . Does the expression 'onset of insolvency' in the first               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     indent of Article 3 (2 ) and the first indent of Article 4 (2 )     European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     of Directive 80/987 ( 2 ) correspond to the date on which           Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
     the request was made for insolvency proceedings to be               Civil Section ) of 16 November 1995 , received at the Court
     opened or to the date on which such proceedings opened              Registry on 4 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
     ( both of which are mentioned in Article 2 )?                       case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio SRL v. Amministrazione
                                                                         delle Finanze dello Stato on questions identical to those in
3 . Can Article 4 ( 3 ) and Article 10 of the Directive be               Joined Cases C-47/95 and others ( M.
     interpreted as meaning that the Member State may
     preclude the payment of employment claims which                      (!) See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the
                        of 23 November 1995                               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener, v.
in Case T-64/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                      European Communities (')                            Gianluigi Valsesia and Denis Waelbroeck and, in the oral
 (Officials — Occupational disease — Partial permanent                    proceedings, Alexandre Vandencasteele ) — application for
invalidity — Principle of sound management and good                       the annulment of the decision of the Commission of
 administration — Duty to provide assistance — Misuse of                   15 March 1993 rejecting the application for recognition of
              powers — Action for compensation)                           an occupational disease suffered by the applicant and for an
                               ( 96/C 16/25 )                             award of damages by way of compensation for the material
                                                                          and non-material damage allegedly suffered by him — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                  (Language of the case: French)                          Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
                                                                          Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                          23 November 1 995 , in which it:
 In Case T-64/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities, residing in                       1 , dismisses the action;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/ 12            EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20 . 1 . 96
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 December 1995
f 1 ) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                  in Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 : Giovanni Battista
                                                                   Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities f 1 )
                                                                   (Officials — Pay slips — Weightings — Council Regulations
                                                                   (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3761/92, (EEC/Euratom/ECSC)
                                                                   No 3765/92 and (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3766/92 —
                                                                                Objection of illegality)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/27)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    of 30 November 1995
in Case T-507/93 : Paulo Branco v. Court of Auditors of the        In Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 : Giovanni Battista
                  European Communities (*)                         Abello and the other officials and servants of the
(Officials — List of officials eligible for promotion —            Commission of the European Communities listed in the
 Transfer to another institution — Act adversely affecting an      Annex to the judgment, and Gerhard Riesch, an official of
official — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Claim          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                 for damages — Inadmissible)                       by Michele Tamburini and Franco Colussi, of the Milan Bar,
                            96/C 16/26
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at 36 rue de
                                                                   Wiltz, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by the Council of the
                                                                   European Union ( Agent: Anna Lo Monaco ) — application,
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    first, for the annulment of the applicants' pay slips for
                                                                   December 1992 and January 1993 , inasmuch as they were
                                                                   drawn up in accordance with the weightings resulting
In Case T-507/93 : Paulo Branco, an official of the                from the application of Council Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, formerly an                ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC ) No 3761 /92, ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC )
official of the Court of Auditors of the European                  No 3765/92 and ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC ) No 3766/92 ( OJ No
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented initially by        L 383 , pp . 1 , 9 and 11 ), and, by way of objection, a
Dieter Grozinger de Rosnay and David M. Travessa                   declaration that the Regulations in question are illegal, and,
Mendes, and subsequently by Raoul Wagener and David M.             second, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
Travessa Mendes, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address            by the applicants as a result of the application of the
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6-12           contested weightings — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Place d'Armes, v. Court of Auditors of the European                Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and R.
Communities (Agents : initially Jean-Marie Steiner and Jan         Schintgen and R. Garria-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,
Inghelram and subsequently Jan Inghelram and Isabel Jalles )       Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in
— application, first, for the annulment of the promotion           which it :
procedure of the Court of Auditors for 1993 , inasmuch as
the applicant was excluded therefrom, and, second, for
compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                 1 , dismisses the application;
suffered by the applicant as a result of breaches of duty
allegedly committed by the administration of the defendant         2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
institution in the context of the promotion procedures for
1992 and 1993 — the Court of First Instance ( First                (!) OJ No C 325 , 9 . 12 . 1993 and OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, acting for the
President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges;
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Registrar, gave a judgment on
30 November 1 995 , in which it:
                                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                         of 10 November 1995
                                                                   in Case T-554/93 : A. T. E. Saint, C. Murray and M. Craig v.
                                                                   Council of the European Union and Commission of the
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the                         European Communities ( x )
      costs relating to the proceedings for interim
      measures .
                                                                                (Removal from the register)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/28 )
(!) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   In Case T-554/93 : A. T. E. Saint, C. Murray and M. Craig
                                                                   (United Kingdom and Ireland ), represented by E. H.


title: Case T-15/00: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Auto-en Carrosseriebedrij Ambting and Others v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Auto-en Carrosseriebedrij Ambting and Others v Commission
   (Case T-15/00) (1)

   (2006/C 261/62)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 135, 13.5.2000.


title: Case C-337/09 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2009 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 17 June 2009 in Case T-498/04: Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/23

         Appeal brought on 20 August 2009 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 17 June 2009 in Case T-498/04: Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-337/09 P)
   2009/C 282/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt and G. Wolf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd, Commission of the European Communities, Association des Utilisateurs et Distributeurs de l'AgroChimie Européenne (Audace)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 17 June 2009;

               —

               give final judgment on the dispute by dismissing the Application in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the CFI; and

               —

               in any event, order that the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of first Instance be borne by the Applicant at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the Court of first Instance:

               1.

               erred in law by treating the two conditions under Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Communities (1) (‘Basic Regulation’), namely the requirements that a claim for market economy status (‘MES’) contain sufficient evidence that decisions listed in that provision were ‘made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand’ and that they were made ‘without significant State interference’, as s single condition, thereby rendering the second condition redundant;

               2.

               erred in law when interpreting the word ‘significant’ in ‘significant State interference’ under Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation as referring to the considerations or motives underlying the State's interference, i.e. whether it was based on purely commercial considerations or considerations peculiar to the State, whereas such an interpretation finds no support in the wording of that provision;

               3.

               erred in law by effectively reversing the burden of proof in requiring the Council to establish, when refusing MES to a State-controlled company, that the company's decisions under Article 2(7)(c) were influenced by considerations peculiar to the State as opposed to commercial considerations;

               4.

               erred in law by finding that the Council had committed a manifest error in concluding that the State exercised significant control over the Applicant as regards the setting of export prices for the product concerned by (i) entrusting the China Chamber of Commerce Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers and Exporters (‘CCCMC’) to set a minimum floor price, verify, and veto exports that did not respect these prices; and (ii) enforcing the minimum floor price by preventing export transactions which had not been stamped by the CCCMC. In particular, the Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the Council was required to put in issue the probative value or sufficiency of evidence advanced by the Applicant that the system put in place by the CCMC and supported by Chinese exports authorities did not actually restrict exporters’ ability to set export prices independently;

               5.

               erred in law by finding that, on the basis of all other findings, the Council committed a manifest error in refusing the Applicant MES.

      (1)  OJ L 56, p 1.


title: Case T-290/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — CMBG v Commission and ECB

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/14

         Action brought on 24 May 2013 — CMBG v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-290/13)
   (2013/C 226/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CMBG Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order compensation in the sum of EUR 1 999 121,60 on the basis that the conditions required under the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 between Cyprus and the Defendants at paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 were pregnant with requirements in flagrant violation of a superior law for the protection of the individual, namely: article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights;

               —

               Declare the relevant conditions void and order an urgent review of the financial assistance instruments under article 14 to 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (‘ESM Treaty’) pursuant to Article 19 in light of the court’s judgment with a view to changes in order to comply with the judgment of the court; and

               —

               To the extent that compensation under the first head of claim does not cater for the fact that the relevant conditions would stand annulled, an order for compensation for breach of article 263 TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the relevant conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding were pregnant with requirements that were ‘in flagrant violation of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual’ (1) because:

                           —

                           The said rule of law is superior because it is a law contained the Charter and the ECHR;

                           —

                           By Article 51(1) of the Charter and 6.2 TEU the defendants are obliged to respect and uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter and the ECHR; and

                           —

                           Bank deposits are property within the meaning of the said article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the violations below taken together were so extensive as to amount to a flagrant violation of a superior law, as follows:

                           —

                           At the time the applicant was deprived of its bank deposits there were no ‘conditions provided for by law’ in place in the acquis dealing with deprivation of bank deposits contrary to the Charter and Protocol;

                           —

                           The applicant was deprived of its deposits without ‘fair compensation being paid in good time’ contrary to article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           Deprivation of deposits is prima facie unlawful unless ‘subject to the principle of proportionality… it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ (2);

                           —

                           The competing public interest in preventing panic and a run on the banking system, short and medium term, was not considered in evaluating the public interest under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           The aim was not to damage or penalise Cyprus but to benefit it and the euro area by providing stability support and thereby alleviating not destabilising its financial institutions and economic viability; and

                           —

                           There was no relationship of proportionality of the interference to a legitimate aim since by Article 3 of the ESM Treaty 2012 the genuine objective was ‘to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality… to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financial problems, if indispensable to safeguard the euro area as a whole and of its member state’ without paralysing its economy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that deprivation of the applicant’s deposits was not necessary or proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in the result the defendants caused the applicant to be deprived of its bank deposits because, but for the flagrant infringement, the applicant’s bank deposits would have been protected by their rights under the Charter and Protocol with the result that the applicant’s loss was sufficiently direct and foreseeable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the above submissions are well founded the relevant conditions fall to be declared void notwithstanding the relevant conditions were addressed to Cyprus, since they are of direct and individual concern to the applicant on the grounds that the relevant conditions and the manner of their implementation infringe the Treaty and/or a rule of law relating to its application and/or, to the extent that it is held that depriving the applicant’s bank deposit undermined the rule of law contrary to Article 6.1 of the TEU, were a misuse of powers.

      (1)  See the judgment of 2 December 1971 in Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council (1971) ECR 975

      (2)  Article 52(1) of the Charter


title: Case C-293/08: Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/34

         Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-293/08)
   (2008/C 223/53)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and (1), in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 10 October 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 304, p. 12.


title: Case C-437/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Nicola Seminario (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Nicola Seminario
   (Case C-437/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Criminal proceedings against

   Nicola Seminario

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU 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 TFEU 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.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 1997 in Case C-259/95: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, supported by Kingdom of Sweden and Commission of the European Communities (Annulment of Council Decision No 95/184/EC - Prerogatives of the Parliament)

text:
C 357/4                Hen-!                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 11 . 97
     the hours worked are between one half and two thirds                 the President of the Sixth Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and
     of normal working hours are counted only as two                      G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A.
     thirds of normal working hours does not fall with the                Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     scope of Article 119 of the Treaty or of Council                     a judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
     Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States
     relating to the application of the principle of equal pay            Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
     for men and women.                                                   9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
                                                                          equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
                                                                          employment, vocational training and promotion, and
3 . Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                    working conditions precludes, in cases where far more
     the implementation of the principle of equal treatment               women will be affected than men, national legislation
     for men and women as, regards access to employment,                  which provides that, in the case of part-time employment
     vocational training and promotion, and working                       involving working hours of no less than one half of
     conditions precludes national legislation which                      normal working hours, the total length of professional
     requires that, for the purposes of calculating the length            experience required for exemption from the qualifying
     of service of public servants, periods of employment                 examination for tax advisers is to be extended on a pro
     during which the hours worked are between one half                   rata basis, save where such legislation is justified by
     and two thirds of normal working hours are counted                   objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on
     only as two thirds of normal working hours, save                     grounds of sex.
     where such legislation is justified by objective criteria
     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.                   (') OJ C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
(') OJ C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
                             ( Sixth Chamber)
                          of 2 October 1997                               in Case C-259/95 : European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                          European Union, supported by Kingdom of Sweden and
in Case C-100/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         Commission of the European Communities (')
the Finanzgericht Bremen ): Brigitte Kording v. Senator fiir
                                 Finanzen (')                              (Annulment of Council Decision No 95/184/EC —
                                                                                Prerogatives of the Parliament)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Public servant —
Part-time employment — Right of exemption from a                                                       ( 97/C 357/07 )
qualifiying examination for entry to a profession —
                       Indirect discrimination)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                               ( 97/C 357/06 )
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: German)                                    published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Case C-259/95 : European Parliament ( Agents: Christian
           published in the European Court Reports)                        Pennera and Auke Baas ) v. Council of the European Union
                                                                           ( Agent: Guus Houttuin ), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                           Sweden ( Agent: Lotty Nordling) and Commission of the
In Case C-100/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                European Communities ( Agents: John Forman and
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court),                  Dominique Maidani ) — application for the annulment of
Bremen ( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the                        Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May 1995
proceedings pending before that court between Brigitte                     amending Decision No 3092/94/EC introducing a
Kording and Senator fiir Finanzen — on the interpretation                  Community system of information on home and leisure
of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of                      accidents ( OJ L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 36 ) — the Court
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                  ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                     of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur), H.
employment, vocational training and promotion, and                         Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola,
working conditions ( OJ L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976, p. 40 ) — the                 Advocate-General;            H.    von      Holstein,   Assistant
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for               2 October 1997, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 357/5
1 . dismisses the application;                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
2 . orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
3 . orders the Kingdom of Sweden and the Commission to                 in Case C- 144/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     bear their own costs .                                            the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles ): Office National des
                                                                                Pensions ( ONP) v. Maria Cirotti (')
(') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                       (Social security — Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1408/71 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/09 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 2 October 1997
in Case C-122/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Stephen Austin Saldanha and                           published in the European Court Reports)
    MTS Securities Corporation v. Hiross Holding AG ( 1 )
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of
nationality — Dual nationality — Scope of application of               In Case C- 144/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                the Treaty — Security for costs)                       of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles
                                                                       ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) for a preliminary ruling
                            ( 97/C 357/08 )
                                                                       in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                       Office National des Pensions ( ONP) and Maria Cirotti —
                (Language of the case: German)                         on the interpretation of Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation
                                                                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
           published in the European Court Reports)                    families moving within the Community ( OJ, English
                                                                       Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ), as amended and
In Case C-122/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
of the EC Treaty from the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Austrian              2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) — the Court
                                                                       ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
Supreme Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Stephen
                                                                       of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), P. J. G.
                                                                       Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.
Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation and
Hiross Holding AG — on the interpretation of the first                 Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has           Articles 46 and 51 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
given a judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has                    of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of
ruled :                                                                social security schemes to employed persons, to self
                                                                       employed persons and to members of their families
The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be              moving within the Community, as amended and updated
construed as precluding a Member State from requiring                  by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983,
provision of security for costs by a national of another               must be interpreted as precluding the share of an
Member State who is also a national of a non-member                    employed person 's old-age pension granted to that
country, in which he is resident, where that national, who             person 's separated spouse under the legislation of a
is not resident and has no assets in the first Member State,           Member State from being recalculated by reference to
                                                                       alterations arising from general economic and social
has brought proceedings before one of its civil courts in
his capacity as a shareholder against a company                        developments in an invalidity benefit received by that
established in that Member State, if such a requirement is             separated spouse under the legislation of another Member
                                                                       State.
not imposed on its own nationals who are not resident
and have no assets there.
                                                                        (') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
(') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case T-308/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Reisenthel v EUIPO (keep it easy) (EU trade mark — Application for word mark keep it easy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Reisenthel v EUIPO (keep it easy)
   (Case T-308/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for word mark keep it easy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 326/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E. A. Busse, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2659/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign keep it easy as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Peter Reisenthel to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case C-116/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Skatteministeriet v T Danmark

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Skatteministeriet v T Danmark
   (Case C-116/16)
   (2016/C 270/29)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: T Danmark

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a Member State’s s reliance on Article 1(2) of the Directive (1) on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse,, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 1(2) of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article1(2)?

                           1.1

                           If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(1)(c) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that ‘it is a precondition that taxation of the dividends be waived … under the provisions of Council Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 1(2) of the Directive?

               2.

               Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with OECD’s Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of distributed dividends is contingent on whether the dividends recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the dividends, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 1(2) of the Directive?

               3.

               Should the Court answer question 2 in the affirmative, is it then for the national courts to define what is included in the concept ‘beneficial owner’, or should the concept, in the application of Directive 90/435/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that a specifically EU law significance should be attached to the concept referred to the EU Court of Justice for a ruling?

               4.

               Should the Court answer question 2 in the affirmative and the answer to question 3 is that it is not for the national courts to define what is included in the concept ‘beneficial owner’, is the concept then to be interpreted as meaning that in a company resident in a Member State which, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives dividends from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of those dividends as that concept is to be interpreted under EU law?

                           (a)

                           Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC (‘the Interest & Royalties Directive’), read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof?

                           (b)

                           Should the concept be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 10 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 12), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’, and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’?

                           (c)

                           What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the dividends recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ if the dividends recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person?

                           (d)

                           What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the dividends recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ that the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?

               5.

               If it is assumed in the case that there are ‘domestic provisions required for the prevention of fraud or abuse’, see Article 1(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC, that dividends have been distributed from a company (A) resident in a Member State to a parent company (B) in another Member State and from there passed to that company’s parent company (C), resident outside the EU/EEA, which in turn has distributed the funds to its parent company (D), also resident outside the EU/EEA, that no double taxation convention has been entered into between the first-mentioned State and the State where C is resident, that a double taxation convention has been entered into between the first-mentioned State and the State where D is resident, and that the first-mentioned State, under its legislation, would therefore not have had a claim to tax at source on dividends distributed from A to D, had D been the direct owner of A, is there abuse under the Directive so that B is not protected thereunder?

               6.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source pursuant to Article 1(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC concerning dividends received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), does Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, preclude legislation under which the latter Member State taxes the parent company resident in the other Member State on the dividends, then the Member State in question deems resident parent companies in otherwise similar circumstances to the exempt from tax on such dividends?

               7.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source pursuant to Article 1(2) of Directive 90/435/EEC concerning dividends received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company in the latter Member State is deemed to have limited tax liability in that Member State on the dividends in question, does Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, preclude legislation under which the latter Member requires the company liable for retaining the tax at source (subsidiary) to pay overdue interest in the event of overdue payment of the tax at source claim at a higher rate of interest than the overdue interest rate that the Member State charges on corporation tax claims lodged against a company resident in the same Member State?

               8.

               Should the Court answer question 2 in the affirmative and the answer to question 3 is that it is not for the national courts to define what is included in the concept ‘beneficial owner’, and if a company (parent company) resident in a Member State cannot, on that basis, be deemed exempt from tax at source pursuant to Directive 90/435/EEC concerning dividends received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), is the latter Member State then bound pursuant to Directive 90/435/EEC or Article 4(3) TEU to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner?

               9.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 90/435/EEC concerning dividends received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), does Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU (in the alternative Article 63 TFEU), viewed separately or as a whole, preclude legislation under which:

                           (a)

                           the latter Member State requires the subsidiary to retain tax at source on the dividends and makes that person liable to the authorities for the non-retained tax at source, where there is no such duty to retain tax at source when the parent company is resident in the Member State?

                           (b)

                           the latter Member State calculates overdue interest on the tax at source owing?

                     The EU Court of Justice is requested to include the answer to questions 6 and 7 in its answer to question 9.

               10.

               In circumstances where:

                           (1)

                           a company (parent company) resident in a Member State fulfils the requirement in Directive 90/435/EEC of owning (in 2011) at least 10 % of the share capital of a company (subsidiary) resident in another Member State;

                           (2)

                           the parent company is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source pursuant to Article 1(2) in Directive 90/435/EEC concerning dividends distributed by the subsidiary;

                           (3)

                           the parent company’s (direct or indirect) shareholder(s), resident in a non-EU/EEA country, are deemed to be the beneficial owner(s) of the dividends in question;

                           (4)

                           the aforementioned (direct or indirect) shareholder(s) also do not fulfil the aforementioned capital requirement;

                     does Article 63 TFEU then preclude legislation under which the Member State where the subsidiary is situated taxes the dividends in question when the Member State in question deems resident companies fulfilling the capital requirement in Directive 90/435/EEC, that is to say, in fiscal year 2011 owns at least 10 % of the share capital in the dividend-distributing company, to be tax-exempt on such dividends?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States.

      OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6


title: Case C-245/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/17

         Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-245/08)
   (2008/C 183/35)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC (1) of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141.


title: Case C-421/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno
   (Case C-421/17)
   (2017/C 357/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

      Respondent: Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno

      Question referred

   Does the transfer by a public limited company of immovable property to a shareholder in connection with the redemption of its shares constitute a transaction that is subject to value added tax in accordance with Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-49/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic Cruises and other companies against the order made on 12 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-201/99 Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 108/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.4.2001
      law the interests underlying the Ministerial orders. The           Appeal brought on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic
      Commission’s claim that Article 21(3) may be understood            Cruises and other companies against the order made on
      as conferring a duty on it to act by way of decision as if         12 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court
      its role as ‘guardian of the treaties’, together with the          of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      overriding interests of Community law, required such               T-201/99 Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council of
      a solution, makes no sense whatever. In fact, if the               the European Union and Commission of the European
      Commission had reason to believe that the Portuguese                                          Communities
      Republic infringed a particular duty to inform, the proper
      procedure, and the only one in this case, was to bring
      infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-49/01 P)
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/11)
                                                                         An appeal against the order made on 12 December 2000 by
                                                                         the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in Case T-201/99 Royal Olympic
                                                                         Cruises and Others v Council of the European Union and
Action brought on 2 February 2001 by Commission of                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
    the European Communities against Italian Republic                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic Cruises and other
                                                                         companies, represented by Professor N. Skandamis, of the
                          (Case C-46/01)                                 Athens Bar, and A. Potamianos of the Piraeus Bar.
                         (2001/C 108/10)
                                                                         The appellants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      —     set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
represented by Hans Støvlbaek and Roberto Amorosi, acting                      12 December 2000;
as Agents.
                                                                         —     refer back to the Court of First Instance for judgment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the action for damages brought by the appellants on
                                                                               9 September 1999;
—     declare that, by failing to draw up and forward to
      the Commission the appropriate plans, outlines and
      summary inventories necessary to comply with Articles              —     order the Council of the European Union and the
      11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 Sep-                 European Commission to pay the costs.
      tember 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
      nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PC13/PCT), the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      those provisions of the directive;and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the Italian Republic.
                                                                         1.    Inadequate reasoning: the dismissal of the action for
                                                                               damages as clearly unfounded denied the applicants
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                their procedural right to put forward and to develop
                                                                               sufficiently their arguments concerning a case which is of
The Italian authorities should have taken steps to communicate                 major importance and, in many respects, novel for the
to the Commission the various plans, outlines and summary                      case-law.
inventories, provided for by Articles 11 and 4(1) of the
directive referred to in the Commission’s application, by
16 September 1999. To date, it has not yet done so.                      2.    Misinterpretation of the condition requiring a direct
                                                                               causal link.
(1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.