title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 10 July 1996 in the case of Wilhelm Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg (der Landrat); also participating: der Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses, Kiel (Case C-321/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 354/ 19
     broadcasting determine whether a broadcaster qualifies            2 . Are the proceedings of an administrative authority
     to become an active member of the EBU, and in that it                    within the meaning of paragraph 7 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the
     analyses the relevance of the criteria for membership of                 Umweltinformationsgesetz [Law on information on the
     the EBU in the light of the Commission decision .                        environment] preliminary investigation proceedings
                                                                              within the meaning of the third indent of Article 3 ( 2 ) of
— The Court of First Instance was guilty of manifest error                    that Directive ?
     of assessment when it considered that the Commission
     granted an exemption to the rules for EBU membership .            0 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 56 .
     The Commission has in no way granted exemption to
     those rules .
— Manifest error of assessment in so far as it is considered
     in the judgment that the criteria for EBU membership are
     vague, imprecise and liable to be applied in a                    Action brought on 2 October 1996 by the Commission of
     discriminatory manner, whereas, on an objective view,             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     they are appropriate, foreseeable and reasonably                                                   Belgium
     precise .                                                                                Case C-323 /96 )
— Defective reasoning and misinterpretation of Article 85                                           ( 96/C 354/37 )
     in so far as the judgment seems to lay down criteria for
     the grant of exemption to a group of broadcasters                 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     entrusted with a mission of public interest which are so          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     onerous as to make it practically impossible to obtain            2 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
     any exemption whatsoever . The judgment also seriously            Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
     encroaches upon the discretion available to the                   Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     Commission and consequently upon its ability to fulfil            Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its
     its obligations in administering the competition rules.           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(!) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 12 .                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                              its obligations under Directives 89/440/EEC ( ! ) and
                                                                              93/37/EEC ( 2 ), and in particular Articles 7 and 11 of
                                                                              Directive 93/37/EEC in so far as it did not place a notice
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities
Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order                      either for the overall project or for the individual lots for
of that court of 10 July 1996 in the case of Wilhelm                          the construction of a building for the Vlaamse Raad and
Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg ( der Landrat); also                           it did not apply the award procedures in accordance with
participating: der Vertreter des offentlichen Interesses,                     those directives;
                                 Kiel
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                         ( Case C-321 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 354/36 )
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 According to the Commission, the defendant does not
European Communities by an order of the                                dispute that it infringed Directive 93/37/EEC in connection
Schleswig-Holsteinischen Oberverwaltungsgericht [Higher                with the award procedures for the building of the Vlaamse
Administrative Court, Schleswig-Holstein] ( Fourth                     Raad. In contrast, it is clear from various reactions of the
Chamber ) of 10 July 1996 , which was received at the Court            Belgian public authorities that they considered that the
Registry on 1 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the           infringement of the provisions of Directive 93/37/EEC was
case of Wilhelm Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg ( der                   attributable to the inadequate implementation of that
Landrat); also participating: der Vertreter des offentlichen           Directive in Belgian law, namely that the legislative bodies
Interesses [Representative of the Public Interest], Kiel, on           considered that the necessary legal framework was lacking.
the following questions :                                              The defendant's reliance on it itself having incorrectly
                                                                        implemented the Directive in question is however irrelevant,
 1 . Are the observations made by a lower                               since a Member State is not entitled to plead provisions,
      Landschaftspflegebehdrde [ Countryside Protection                 practices or situations of a domestic nature in order to
      Authority] in its capacity as representative of the public        justify its non-compliance with its obligations under
      interest in connection with development consent                   Community law.
      proceedings an administrative measure designed to
      protect the environment within the meaning of                     (>) OJ No L 210 , 21 . 7 . 1989 , p . 1 .
      Article 2 ( a ) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (') of            ( 2 ) OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 54 .
      7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
      the environment ?


title: Case C-600/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Matera (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2013 — Intelcom Service Ltd v Vincenzo Mario Marvulli

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Matera (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2013 — Intelcom Service Ltd v Vincenzo Mario Marvulli
   (Case C-600/13)
   2014/C 52/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Matera

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Intelcom Service Ltd

      Defendant: Vincenzo Mario Marvulli

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 51 et seq. of Italian Law No 89/1913 concerning the profession of notary, in conjunction with Articles 1350 and 2657 of the Civil Code, give rise to a de facto monopoly on the provision of services by notaries with regard to drawing up and authenticating deeds relating to the sale of immovable property in Italy, in clear breach of the rules and principles laid down by the Treaties of the European Union (Article 49 of the EU Treaty), which provide for the free movement of services within the Member States of the European Union, and in particular of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of 12 December 2006 [on services in the internal market] (referred to as the Bolkestein directive), implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 59 of 26 March 2010 and published in G.U. No 94 of 23 April 2010?

               2.

               Does the Court of Justice of the European Union also consider Italian Law No 89/1913 concerning the profession of notary, in conjunction with Articles 1350 and 2657 of the Civil Code, to be in breach of the rules laid down by the EU Treaty which prohibit monopolies on the provision of services (Article 53 of the EU Treaty and Article 37 of the EU Treaty)?

               3.

               Does the Court of Justice of the European Union also consider Italian Law No 89/1913 concerning the profession of notary, in conjunction with Articles 1350 and 2657 of the Civil Code, to be in breach of European Union rules prohibiting what are referred to as measures having equivalent effect, laid down in Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty and subsequently included in Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a result of the reform brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, such measures being prohibited by the Treaty since they treat nationals of some Member States less favourably than nationals of other Member States with regard to access to services?

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case T-327/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Luciano Lavagnoli against Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.3.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 56/19
In that decision, the Commission explains that, in 1993, when              Pleas in law and main arguments
examining previous requests by the applicant for co-financing,
it concluded that the applicant was not eligible for such co-
financing inasmuch as it did not meet the applicable criteria,             In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
and that once the competent departments declare an NGO                     of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
to be ineligible for Community co-financing that decision                  Regulations, breach of the principle of sound administration
automatically results in the rejection of any projects sub-                and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. In
sequently submitted, until such time as the NGO meets the                  particular, the procedure for drawing up the staff report was
eligibility criteria. In the applicant’s view, that approach is not        considerably delayed and was followed without consulting the
in conformity either with European Union law or with the                   ad hoc group, which was essential in view of the union duties
principles of sound administration.                                        undertaken by the applicant.
The applicant also states that the Commission has constantly
maintained, both in the contested decision and in the course
of the procedure which took place before the European
Ombudsman following the complaints lodged by the appli-                    Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Tony Robinson
cant, that the applicant had acted fraudulently in order                       against Commission of the European Communities
to obtain financing funds. The applicant asserts that that
assessment is unfounded and that the contested decision is                                         (Case T-328/01)
therefore unjustified.
                                                                                (2002/C 56/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Tony
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Luciano Lavag-                       Robinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
  noli against Commission of the European Communities                      lawyer.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case T-327/01)
                                                                           —     annul the decision taken at the meeting of the Bureau of
                            (2002/C 56/34)                                       the ESP Parliamentary Group on 6 and 7 March 2001 in
                                                                                Brussels to the effect that, on the proposal of the
                                                                                Secretary-General, the Bureau decided to promote two
                     (Language of the case: French)                              persons other than the applicant to Grade A 3 with effect
                                                                                from 1 March 2001;
                                                                           —     compensate the applicant to the tune of EUR 10 000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Luciano
Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),                Pleas in law and main arguments
represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.
                                                                           In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                           of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                rules of procedure of the secretariat of the socialist group, as
                                                                           well as breach of general principles of law such as the
—     grant the applicant BEF 500 000 (EUR 12 396,49) by                   principles of sound administration, the protection of legitimate
      way of damages in compensation for non-material dam-                 expectations, legal certainty and equal treatment. Furthermore,
      age caused as a result of the failure, to date, to draw up a         the applicant alleges error of assessment, misuse of powers
      definitive staff report for the period 1 July 1997 to                and ultra vires. According to the applicant, consideration of his
      30 June 1999;                                                        merits should have necessarily resulted in his promotion rather
                                                                           than in that of the persons promoted by way of the contested
                                                                           decision.
—     make an appropriate order as to costs ordering the
      defendant to pay the costs and fees.


title: Case C-169/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2008 — Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2008 — Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna
   (Case C-169/08)
   (2008/C 171/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Costituzionale
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Defendant: Regione Autonoma della Sardegna
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 of the Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule, such as that laid down in Article 4 of Law No 4 of the Region of Sardinia of 11 May 2006 (Miscellaneous provisions on revenue, reclassification of costs, social policy and development), as amended by Article 3(3) of Law No 2 of the Region of Sardinia of 29 May 2007 (Provisions for the preparation of the annual and long-term budget of the Region — 2007 Finance Law), under which the regional tax on aircraft making stopovers for tourist purposes is levied only on undertakings, operating aircraft which they themselves use for the transport of persons in the course of ‘general business aviation’ activities, which have tax domicile outside the territory of the Region of Sardinia?

               2.

               Does Article 4 of Law No 4 of 2006 of the Region of Sardinia, as amended by Article 3(3) of Law No 2 of 2007 of the Region of Sardinia, by providing for the imposition of the regional tax on aircraft making stopovers for tourist purposes only on undertakings, operating aircraft which they themselves use for the transport of persons in the course of ‘general business aviation’ activities, which have tax domicile outside the territory of the Region of Sardinia, constitute, within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty, State aid to undertakings carrying on the same activities which have tax domicile in the Region of Sardinia?

               3.

               Is Article 49 of the Treaty to be interpreted as precluding the application of a rule, such as that laid down in Article 4 of Law No 4 of 2006 of the Region of Sardinia, as amended by Article 3(3) of Law No 2 of 2007 of the Region of Sardinia, under which the regional tax on recreational craft making stopovers for tourist purposes is levied only on undertakings, operating recreational craft, which have tax domicile outside the territory of the Region of Sardinia and whose commercial operations involve making such craft available to third parties?

               4.

               Does Article 4 of Law No 4 of 2006 of the Region of Sardinia, as amended by Article 3(3) of Law No 2 of 2007 of the Region of Sardinia, by providing for the imposition of the regional tax on recreational craft making stopovers only on undertakings, operating recreational craft, which have tax domicile outside the territory of the Region of Sardinia and whose commercial operations involve making such craft available to third parties constitute, within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty, State aid to undertakings carrying on the same activities which have tax domicile in the Region of Sardinia?


title: Case C-158/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 3 April 2015 — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland NV v het bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 3 April 2015 — Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland NV v het bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit
   (Case C-158/15)
   (2015/C 205/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elektriciteits Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland NV

      Other party: het bestuur van de Nederlandse Emissieautoriteit

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a situation such as the present, where coal is stored in a coal park where CO2 emissions occur as a result of self-heating, where the centre of the coal park is about 800 meters distant from the edge of the coal-fired power plant, where the two sites are separated from each other by a public road and where the coal is transported from the storage site to the power plant by means of a conveyor belt passing over the road, fall within the scope of the term ‘installation’ as referred to in Article 3(e) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC?

               2.

               Does ‘fuel exported from the installation’ in Article 27(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (2) of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council refer to a situation such as the present, where coal is lost during storage in the coal park due to combustion resulting from self-heating?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30.


title: Case F-64/13: Action brought on 28 June 2013 — ZZ v Court of Justice

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/30

         Action brought on 28 June 2013 — ZZ v Court of Justice
   (Case F-64/13)
   2013/C 274/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report concerning the period from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2008, and order that the defendant pay compensation for non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the applicant’s staff report for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008;

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 21 March 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 58 000 for non-material damage

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 May 1998 in Case C-403/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Loan - Documentary credit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - 'Directly concerned')

text:
C 209/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 May 1998                                                        of 5 May 1998
in Case C-391/96 P: Compagnie Continentale (France) SA               in Case C-403/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd v. Commission of
       v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                                 the European Communities (1)
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the                  (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the
States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð                           States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð
Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð                          Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð
            Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')                                Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')
                         (98/C 209/19)                                                        (98/C 209/20)
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                            published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-391/96 P: Compagnie Continentale (France) SA,              In Case C-403/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly trading
a company incorporated under French law, established in              as Richco Commodities Ltd, a company incorporated
Levallois-Perret (France), represented by Patrick Chabrier,          under Bermudian law, established at Hamilton (Bermuda),
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                     represented by M. M. Slotboom, P. V. F. Bos and J. G. A.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10                    van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
Rue Mathias Hardt Ð appeal against the judgment of the               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  11 Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the
(Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996 in Case T-494/93                Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Compagnie Continentale v. Commission [1996] ECR                      (Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996 in Case T-491/93
II-1157, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                Richco v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1131, seeking to
other party to the proceedings being the Commission                  have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
of the European Communities (Agents: Marie-JoseÂ                     proceedings being the Commission of the European
Jonczy and Nicholas Khan) Ð the Court, composed                      Communities (Agents: B. J. Drijber and N. Khan) Ð the
of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,                 Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                           C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.          and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,            D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:                L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:
A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal             A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in                Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in
which it:                                                            which it:
1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     24 September 1996 in Case T-494/93 Compagnie                         24 September 1996 in Case T-491/93 Richco v.
     Continentale v. Commission in so far as it dismisses as              Commission inasmuch as it dismisses as inadmissible
     inadmissible the action for annulment brought by                     the action for annulment brought by Glencore Grain
     Compagnie Continentale (France) SA.                                  Ltd, formerly trading as Richco Commodities Ltd.
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for           2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
     judgment on the substance.                                           judgment on the substance.
3. Reserves costs.                                                   3. Reserves costs.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


title: Case T-495/12 to T-497/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014  — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE — Earlier national figurative mark Dracula — Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE)
   (Case T-495/12 to T-497/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE - Earlier national figurative mark Dracula - Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 235/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ştei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania) (represented by: I. Niculeasa, G. Trantea and B. Mărculet, lawyers)

      Re:

   Three actions brought against three decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Cases R 680/2011-4, R 682/2011-4 and R 679/2011-4), concerning three opposition proceedings between European Drinks SA and SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Joins Cases T-495/12, T-496/12 and T-497/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2)

               Dismisses the actions;

               3)

               Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-71/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 29 January 2002 in the case of Herbert Karner Industrieauktionen GmbH against Troostwĳk GesmbH

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 144/13
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
                           25 April 2002                                 in Case C-309/01 P: Council of the European Union v
                                                                                Hans McAuley (1)
in Case C-96/01 P: The Galileo Company, Galileo Inter-                   (Appeals — Officials — Appointment by promotion —
     national LLC v Council of the European Union (1)                    Consideration of the comparative merits — Manifest error of
                                                                         assessment — Annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(Air transport — Code of conduct for the use of computerised                                       (2002/C 144/19)
reservation systems (CRS) — Purchase of data by groups of
airlines — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility —
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly
                             unfounded)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 144/18)
                                                                         In Case 309/01 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
                   (Language of the case: English)                       F. Anton and A. Pilette), — appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Fourth
                                                                         Chamber, of 14 June 2002 in Case T-230/99 McAuley v
                                                                         Council [2001] ECR-SC II-583, seeking to have that judgment
                                                                         set aside and the rejection of the application submitted at first
                                                                         instance annulled, the other party to the proceedings being
In Case C-96/01 P, The Galileo Company, established in                   Hans McAuley, represented by J.-N. Louis et V. Peere, avocats
Swindon (United Kingdom), Galileo International LLC, estab-              — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of F. Macken,
lished in Rosemont (United States), (represented by R. Plender,          President of Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
QC, instructed by K. Holmes and by D. Austin and R. Butler,              (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
solicitors: Appeal against the order of the Court of First               eral; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 2001,
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                 the operative part of which is as follows:
15 December 2000 in Case T-113/99 Galileo and Galileo
International v Council [2000] ECR II-4141, seeking to have              1.    The appeal is dismissed.
that order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino                   2.    The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.
and M. Bishop), Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Benyon and M. Huttunen) and Amadeus Global
Travel Distribution SA, established in Madrid (Kingdom of                (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
Spain), the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von
Bahr, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 April
2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                           Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
                                                                         of 29 January 2002 in the case of Herbert Karner
                                                                           Industrieauktionen GmbH against Troostwijk GesmbH
2.    The Galileo Company and Galileo International LLC are
      ordered to pay the costs.                                                                     (Case C-71/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/20)
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
(Supreme Court) (Republic of Austria) of 29 January 2002,             The preliminary questions are identical to those in Case C-78/
received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2002, for a                 02.
preliminary ruling in the case of Herbert Karner Industrieauk-
tionen GmbH against Troostwijk GesmbH on the following
question:
Is Article 28 EC to be interpreted as precluding national
legislation which, irrespective of the truthfulness of infor-
mation, prohibits any reference therein to the fact that the
goods come from assets in a bankruptcy, where, in public
announcements or notifications intended for a large circle of
persons, the notice given states that the goods offered for sale      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
are from assets in a bankruptcy although the goods in question        Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
no longer form part of the assets in the bankruptcy?                  of 31 January 2002 in the case of Eurokeramik Gesell-
                                                                      schaft mbh & Co KG against Gemeinnützige Salzburger
                                                                                Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH
                                                                                (Case C-81/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/23)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the
       case of the Greek State against Katina Petrova
                        (Case C-79/02)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                      (Republic of Austria) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court
                       (2002/C 144/21)                                Registry on 11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      case of Eurokeramik Gesellschaft mbh & Co KG against
                                                                      Gemeinnützige Salzburger Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH on the
                                                                      following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court
                                                                      1.   Does a social housing association established as a limited
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           liability company of which there are two shareholders,
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
                                                                           each a regional or local authority, in carrying out the
Greek State against Katina Petrova on the following questions:
                                                                           objects laid down in its statutes which consist in the
                                                                           provision of social housing, meet needs in the general
The preliminary questions are identical to those in Case C-78/             interest not having an industrial or commercial character,
02.                                                                        and is the association therefore to be regarded as a body
                                                                           governed by public law for the purposes of Article 1(b)
                                                                           of Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993
                                                                           concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                           of public works contracts, where it carries out its activities
                                                                           with a limited intention to make a profit and is subject to
                                                                           both competition generally and competition specifically
                                                                           from other social housing associations, but at the same
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal                    time is supported by public funds and is subject to special
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the                     State controls?
       case of the Greek State against Loukas Vlachos
                                                                      2.   Is a national procurement law which permits contracting
                        (Case C-80/02)                                     authorities to exclude tenderers, without giving any
                                                                           reasons, from procurement procedures in respect of
                                                                           works contracts below the Community law threshold
                       (2002/C 144/22)                                     and within a minimal amount of up to, for example,
                                                                           EUR 10 000, compatible with Community law?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court              (1) OJ L 199 1993, p. 54.
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
Greek State against Loukas Vlachos on the following questions:


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-288/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): VauDe Sport GmbH & Co. KG, formerly vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (Common customs tariffs — Tariff headings — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Child carrier)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/15
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 10 May 2001                                                             of 10 May 2001
in Case C-288/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-389/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): VauDe Sport GmbH                     the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus): proceedings pending
& Co. KG, formerly vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz v                               before that court brought by Sulo Rundgren (1)
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (1)
                                                                            (Social Security — Insurance contributions payable by
(Common customs tariffs — Tariff headings — Classifi-                       pensioners who settled in a Member State before the entry
    cation in the Combined Nomenclature — Child carrier)                    into force in that State of Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71
                                                                            and 1612/68 — Right of the State of residence to charge
                                                                            contributions on old-age and invalidity benefits paid by
                           (2001/C 200/26)                                  another Member State — Effect of an agreement by virtue
                                                                            of which the Nordic countries reciprocally waive all reim-
                                                                                bursement of sickness and maternity benefits)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/27)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
In Case C-288/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Finanzgericht, Kassel, (Finance Court for Hessen, Kassel) Ger-                                 in the European Court Reports)
many, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between VauDe Sport GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                            In Case C-389/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
formerly vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz, and Oberfinanzdi-
                                                                            EC from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus (Rovaniemi Adminis-
rektion Koblenz — on the interpretation of the Combined
                                                                            trative Court), (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the
Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court brought by Sulo
(EC) No 1359/95 of 13 June 1995 amending Annexes I and II
                                                                            Rundgren — on the interpretation of various provisions of
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff,
                                                                            application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 802/80 (OJ 1995 L 142,
                                                                            self-employed persons and to members of their families
p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
                                                                            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
                                                                            1983 L 230, p. 6), as last amended at the material time by
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995
judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10) and of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Commission                 for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
Regulation (EC) No 1359/95 of 13 June 1995 amending Annexes I               1968 (II), p. 475), and also on the interpretation of Articles 6
and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and             and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and              EC and 39 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 802/80 is to be interpreted in such           of: A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
a way that a product called a ‘child carrier’, which is designed for        M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
carrying a child in a seated position on an adult’s back, consists          S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
essentially of a support frame of aluminium tubing and a child’s seat       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in
of synthetic material, is assembled by being sewn together, is padded       which it has ruled:
at the sides and at head level, and fitted out with safety belts, padded
shoulder straps and a textile waist band, and which includes a pocket       1.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
for storing small items under the seat, is to be classified under tariff          the application of social security schemes to employed persons,
heading 6307.                                                                     to self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                                moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                       last amended at the material time by Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 applies to a person who,
                                                                                at the time when the Regulation entered into force in a Member
                                                                                State:


title: Action brought on 2 September 1997 by Chantal Mertens against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-244/97)

text:
C 331 /24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 1 . 11 . 97
Action brought on 2 September 1997 by Chantal Mertens                 her as a result of the unlawfulness vitiating the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                proceedings in the said competiton.
                        ( Case T-244/97)
                          ( 97/C 331/48 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 29 August 1997 by Sonja Vermeylen
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                            ( Case T-246/97)
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September                                           ( 97/C 331 /49 )
 1997 by Chantal Mertens, residing at Zellik ( Belgium ),
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer,                             (Language of the case: French)
 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 29 August
                                                                     1997 by Sonja Vermeylen, residing at Kapellen ( Belgium),
— annul the implicit decision, deemed to have been                   represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the
     adopted on 28 May 1997, rejecting the applicant's               Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal .
    complaint of 28 January 1997 contesting the decision
    not to include , her in the list of suitable candidates
    in competition COM/C/3/95 concerning activities as               The applicant claims that the Court should :
    a ' buildings/reception superintendent', which was
    notified on 13 January 1997,
                                                                     — annul the decision not to include the applicant's name
                                                                          in the list of officials most worthy of promotion to
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 grade C2, published in Administrative Notices No 956
                                                                          of 22 November 1996,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                         compensation in a sum to be determined on an
The applicant, a grade D2 official, complains that the                   equitable basis, amounting to not less than BFR
defendant failed to include her in the list of suitable                  500 000,
candidates drawn up in consequence of competition
COM/C/3/95 concerning activities as a ' buildings/
reception superintendent'. She states in that regard that            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
the nine candidates chosen by the selection board in the
competition included a person who did not fulfil the
seniority criteria laid down by the notice of competition as         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a condition of admissibility to the tests . The total marks
obtained by the applicant at the end of the tests was so
close to the minimum which she needed in order to be
                                                                     The applicant, a grade C3 official, contests the fact that
selected that the fact that a person who did not qualify for         her name was not included in the list of officials most
admission to the competition was included amongst the                worthy of promotion, published on 22 November 1996 in
successful candidates was necessarily enough in itself to            Administrative Notices No 956 . She states in that regard
affect her adversely.                                                that during the 1995 financial year her name was included
                                                                     in the list of officials found to be most worthy of
                                                                     promotion to grade C2, but she was not promoted at the
In support of her arguments, she pleads, first, infringement         end of the promotion procedure. Further, although in her
of Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and of            staff report for the period 1991-1993 she was awarded six
Part II of the aforesaid notice of internal competition.             'excellent' and eight 'very good' assessments, for the
                                                                     period 1993-1995 she received only a draft staff report
                                                                     lacking any analytical assessments . On 20 March 1997 the
Second, the applicant pleads a breach by the appointing              applicant received a fresh draft of her staff report for
authority of its duty to have regard for the welfare and             1993-1995 , which did contain analytical assessments. The
interests of officials, in that the appointing authority and         applicant contested the assessments contained in that draft
the selection board in question failed to take all the steps         and requested that they be submitted to the appeal
necessary in order to make good the prejudice suffered by            assessor.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 February 2000 in Joined Cases C-147/97 and C-148/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Deutsche Post AG v Gesellschaft für Zahlungssysteme mbH (GZS) (C-147/97) and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH (C-148/97) (Public undertaking — Postal service — Non-physical remail)

text:
C 122/2                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.4.2000
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment                                            of 10 February 2000
on 11 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                              in Joined Cases C-147/97 and C-148/97 (reference for a
                                                                              preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt
1. Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90
                                                                              am Main): Deutsche Post AG v Gesellschaft für Zahlungs-
    EC) precludes national legislation, such as that in issue in the
                                                                              systeme mbH (GZS) (C-147/97) and Citicorp Kartenser-
    main proceedings, which provides for a method of calculating
                                                                                vice GmbH (C-148/97) (1)
    taxable value for the purposes of levying turnover tax, stamp
    duty and a special consumption tax, if that method varies
                                                                              (Public undertaking — Postal service — Non-physical
    according to whether the products on which tax is to be levied are
                                                                                remail)
    domestic or imported, the latter being taxed more heavily. The
    reference made in the national legislation to Council Regulation
                                                                                (2000/C 122/03)
    (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods
    for customs purposes, for the purposes of determining the taxable
    value of goods from other Member States, is not per se contrary                               (Language of the case: German)
    to the EC Treaty.
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2. Article 95 of the Treaty and Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty                                 in the European Court Reports)
    (now, after amendment, Articles 23 EC and 25 EC) preclude
    national legislation on the application of a tax, such as the             In Joined Cases C-147/97 and C-148/97: reference to the
    compensatory tax in issue in the main proceedings, which                  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
    provides that it is payable on goods from another Member State            by the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am
    but not on equivalent goods produced in the national territory.           Main, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                              pending before that court brought by Deutsche Post AG against
                                                                              Gesellschaft für Zahlungssysteme mbH (GZS) (C-147/97)
3. Regulation No 1224/80 does not apply to trade between the                  and Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH (C-148/97) — on the
    Member States.                                                            interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 10 EC),
4. Community law precludes national legislation requiring customs             Articles 30 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
    authorities to retain imported goods where the amount of tax              Articles 28 EC and 49 EC) and Articles 85, 86 and 90(1) and
    required is challenged, unless the interested party pays that             (2) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86(1) and
    amount, if that procedure is less favourable than the procedure           (2) EC) — the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
    for similar domestic actions or if, in practice, it renders the           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
    importation of goods by that person from other Member States              (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gul-
    virtually impossible or excessively difficult.                            mann, J.P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                              M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General: A. La Pergola;
                                                                              H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
5. The Treaty does not preclude a provision of national law which             judgment on 10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:
    requires disputes concerning the levying of taxes on imported
    goods to be resolved by administrative procedure, which may               In the absence of an agreement between the postal services of the
    affect the importation of goods, provided that there is no                Member States concerned fixing terminal dues in relation to the
    comparable procedure for disputes concerning domestic goods               actual costs of processing and delivering incoming trans-border mail,
    which is more favourable and that where the administrative                it is not contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC),
    authorities refuse or restrict the importation of goods, a judicial       read in conjunction with Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
    remedy lies against their decision.                                       EC) and Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                              Article 49 EC), for a body such as Deutsche Post AG to exercise the
6. Community law does not preclude a provision of national law                right provided for by Article 25(3) of the Universal Postal Conven-
    pursuant to which, in judicial proceedings where it is sought to          tion, in the version adopted on 14 December 1989, to charge, in the
    establish State liability for damage resulting from a breach of           cases referred to in the second sentence of Article 25(1) and
    Community law in order to obtain compensation, the calling of             Article 25(2) thereof, internal postage on items of mail posted in
    witnesses is possible only in exceptional cases, provided that it         large quantities with the postal services of a Member State other than
    applies also to similar domestic actions and does not prevent             the Member State to which that body belongs. On the other hand,
    individuals from exercising rights conferred by direct effect of          the exercise of such a right is contrary to Article 90(1) of the Treaty,
    Community law.                                                            read in conjunction with Article 86 thereof, in so far as the result is
                                                                              that such a body may demand the entire internal postage applicable
                                                                              in the Member State to which it belongs without deducting the
                                                                              terminal dues corresponding to those items of mail paid by the
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                     abovementioned postal services.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: Case C-563/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 30 October 2013 — UPC DTH S.à.r.l. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 30 October 2013 — UPC DTH S.à.r.l. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke
   (Case C-563/13)
   2014/C 24/08
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UPC DTH S.à.r.l.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 2(c) of the Framework Directive, that is to say, Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, be interpreted as meaning that a service by which a service provider supplies, for consideration, conditional access to a package of programmes which contains radio and television broadcast services and is retransmitted by satellite is to be classified as an electronic communications service?

               2.

               May the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the free movement of services is applicable to the service described in the first question, in the case of a service supplied from Luxembourg to Hungary?

               3.

               May the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the service described in the first question, the country of destination, to which the service is sent, is entitled to limit the supply of that type of services by requiring that the [supplier of the] service has to be registered in that Member State and has to be established as a branch or independent legal entity, and allowing this type of services to be supplied only through the establishment of a branch or independent legal entity?

               4.

               May the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that administrative proceedings relating to the services described in the first question, regardless of the Member State in which the undertaking supplying that service operates or is registered, will be subject to the administrative authority of the Member State which has jurisdiction on the basis of the place in which the service is supplied?

               5.

               May Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (Framework Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the service described in the first question must be classified as an electronic communications service, or must such a service be classified as a conditional access service supplied using the conditional access system defined in Article 2(f) of the Framework Directive?

               6.

               On the basis of all the foregoing, may the relevant provisions be interpreted as meaning that the service provider described in the first question must be classified as a provider of electronic communications services pursuant to European Community law?

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).


title: Case T-402/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Schlyter v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/17

         Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Schlyter v Commission
   (Case T-402/12)
   2012/C 343/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Carl Schlyter (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: O. Brouwer and S. Schubert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the refusal of the European Commission to grant full or partial access to its opinion and observations issued in response to notification 2011/673/f relating to the content and submission conditions of annual declarations of nanoparticle substances, made by the French Republic under Directive 98/34/EC (1);

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening party.

      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 errors of law and manifest errors of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (3), as:

                           —

                           The procedure under Directive 98/34/EC does not fall within the Article 4(2) third indent exception to the general principle of disclosure in the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

                           —

                           Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 were misapplied in finding that disclosure of the requested document would specifically and effectively undermine the Commission’s interest in the procedure under Directive 98/34/EC.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the overriding public interest test as required by Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, as:

                           —

                           In this case, Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 reinforces the overriding public interest. The contested decision fails to take into account the overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested document, and contains an error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of the two legal provision mentioned above.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging error of law, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as:

                           —

                           The contested decision lacks any reasoning and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in not granting partial access in application of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264 p. 13)


title: Case C-162/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)) — Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate (Sixth VAT directive — Taxable persons — Second subparagraph of Article 4(4) — Parent companies and subsidiaries — Implementation by the Member State of the single taxable person scheme — Conditions — Consequences)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)) — Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-162/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT directive - Taxable persons - Second subparagraph of Article 4(4) - Parent companies and subsidiaries - Implementation by the Member State of the single taxable person scheme - Conditions - Consequences)
   (2008/C 171/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA

      Defendant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate
   Re:
   Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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 1977 L 145, p. 1) — ‘Persons who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links’ — Concept sufficiently precise to enable the Member States to apply the VAT scheme set out? — Concept of link — National provision requiring that a link exist for a minimum period of time in order to prevent the abuse or rights
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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 is a provision which, in order to be implemented by a Member State, requires prior consultation by that State of the Advisory Committee on value added tax and the adoption of national legislation authorising persons, in particular companies, established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, no longer to be treated as separate taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax in order to be treated as a single taxable person to whom a single value added tax identification number is allocated and, accordingly, the sole person entitled to submit value added tax declarations. It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfies those criteria, subject to the qualification that, where there has been no prior consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax, national legislation which meets those criteria constitutes legislation adopted in breach of the procedural requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388.

               2.

               The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude national legislation which simply treats taxable persons wishing to opt for a mechanism to simplify value added tax declarations and payments differently according to whether the parent company or body has held more than 50 % of the share capital or stock of the persons with whom it is linked since at least the beginning of the calendar year preceding that in which the declaration was made or, on the contrary, satisfies those conditions only after that date. It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes such a provision. Moreover, neither the principle prohibiting the abuse of rights nor the principle of proportionality precludes such legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-445/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/24

      Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Schniga v CPVO (Gala Schnico)
      (Case T-445/16)
      (2016/C 364/25)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze)

         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Community plant variety right at issue: Gala Schnico — Community plant variety right application No 2009/1807

         Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 22 April 2016 in Case A005/2014.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order CPVO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 76, 8, 57(3) and 75 of Regulation No 2100/94.


title: Case T-69/15: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — NK Rosneft and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/12

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — NK Rosneft and Others v Council
   (Case T-69/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Lis pendens - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 337/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russia); RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow); RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhniy-Sakhalin, Russia); RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow); and Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2)

               NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-362/07: Action brought on 14 September 2007 — El Fatmi v Council

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/65

         Action brought on 14 September 2007 — El Fatmi v Council
   (Case T-362/07)
   (2007/C 269/119)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Nouriddin El Fatmi (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Pauw, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 inapplicable and/or annul Decision 2007/445 in so far as those measures relate to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) is not applicable to him inasmuch as there is no connection whatsoever between the common foreign and security policy and the applicant.
   Second, the applicant submits that Regulation No 2580/2001 is not applicable to him inasmuch as he is not committing, or attempting to commit, participating in or facilitating the commission of any act of terrorism.
   In conclusion, the applicant contends that the contested decision is at variance with the principle of proportionality and is inadequately reasoned.


title: Case F-96/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/40

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-96/13)
   2013/C 367/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant, with retroactive effect, from the West Bank and Gaza Strip to East Jerusalem delegation to the DG Mobility and Transport, Common Resources Directorate MOVE/ENER in Brussels.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The decision signed by the Head of section: Redistribution of staff, career and performance management of 25 January 2013 to reassign the applicant, with retroactive effect to 1 January 2013, to the DG Mobility and Transport, Common Resources Directorate MOVE/ENER at Brussels 1;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay him the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in compensation for both the non-pecuniary harm and the material harm and to pay the costs.


title: Case C-16/02: Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
2.3.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ments for taxing capital gains in the case of transfer of tax
                                                                       residence, such as result from Article 167 a of the General Tax
The national provisions establishing the label ‘Salaisons d’Au-        Code, as inserted by Article 24 of the 1999 Finance Law of
vergne’ and the regional labels may affect the free movement           30 December 1998, in the version in force at the date of the
of goods between Member States, particularly inasmuch as               challenged decree.
those provisions favour the marketing of goods of national
origin, to the disadvantage of imported goods. The application
of those provisions creates and maintains, in itself, a difference
between the treatment afforded to those two categories of
goods. Outside the material scope of Council Regulation
No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications               Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission
and designations of origin for agricultural products and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
foodstuffs (1), the concept of ‘indications of source’ approved
by the Court of Justice is capable of justifying an obstacle to                                 (Case C-16/02)
the free movement of goods only if it serves to protect
the significant reputation acquired by a product amongst                                        (2002/C 56/22)
consumers or a particular foodstuff originating in a certain
region. In the Commission’s view, the label ‘Salaisons d’Auverg-
ne’ and the regional labels do not constitute ‘indications of          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
source’ within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, inasmuch           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January
as they are attached not to a product or to a particular               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
foodstuff but to groups of products the special reputation of          represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
which is, however, neither alleged nor established.                    service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Commission Directive 1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999
                                                                             adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                             to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximations
d’État section du contentieux, by order of 14 December
                                                                             of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of
2002 in the case of Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant against
                                                                             the Member States relating to restrictions on the market-
  Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
                                                                             ing and use of certain dangerous substances and prep-
                                                                             arations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (1), or at any rate by
                         (Case C-9/02)                                       failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                        (2002/C 56/21)                                       the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1)
                                                                             of that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the French Conseil d’État,
section du contentieux (Council of State, ruling in a conten-
tious matter), received at the Court Registry on 14 January            Pleas in law and main arguments
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant against Ministère de l’Économie, des            The obligation imposed on Member States by the third
Finances et de l’Industrie (Ministry for the Economy, Finance          paragraph of Article 249 EC is such as to require them to
and Industry) on the following question:                               comply with the time-limits laid down in directives. The time-
Does the principle of freedom of establishment laid down in            limit in the present case expired on 29 February 2000 but
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43          France has not adopted the requisite measures.
EC) preclude the introduction by a Member State, for the
purpose of preventing the risk of tax avoidance, of arrange-           (1) OJ L 142 of 5 June 1999, p. 22.