title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-113/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)): Herta Schmid v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Minimum tax on capital companies)

text:
19.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 18 January 2001                                                          of 18 January 2001
in Case C-113/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)): Herta Schmid v                      the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v Stockholm
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                       Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and
                            Burgenland (1)                                                            Svenska Staten (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of                   (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
        capital — Minimum tax on capital companies)                        — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
                                                                           Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of
                                                                                sport or physical education)
                           (2001/C 150/08)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/09)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-113/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsger-                In Case C-150/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Svea Hovrätt
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                (Svea Court of Appeal), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the
Herta Schmid, acting as insolvency administrator for P.P. Hand-            proceedings pending before that court between Svenska Staten
els GmbH, in liquidation, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,              (Swedish State) and Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between
Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on the interpretation of                 Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Swedish State)
Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969                 — on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) and
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English           Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council                  17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23)                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,                     added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and                    — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
N. Colneric, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,              acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which               L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
it has ruled:                                                              Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled:
On its proper construction, Article 10 of Council Directive
69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the                1.    The provisions of Article 13A(1)(m) and 13B(b) of the Sixth
raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of                Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying, as against insolvent                harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
capital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue does               turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
not exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issue             basis of assessment, preclude national legislation from providing
in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of which            for a general exemption from value added tax for the supply of
those companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax.                     premises and other facilities and the related supply of accessories
                                                                                or other arrangements for the practice of sport or physical
                                                                                education, including services supplied by profit-making organis-
                                                                                ations.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.06.1999.
                                                                           2.    The provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388,
                                                                                read together with those of Articles 2, 6(1) and 13B(b), are
                                                                                sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional for an individual to
                                                                                rely on them as against a Member State before a national court.


title: Case T-204/04: Action brought on 7 June 2004 by Indorata-Servicos e Gestao Lda against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/25

         Action brought on 7 June 2004 by Indorata-Servicos e Gestao Lda against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-204/04)
   (2004/C 217/46)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 2004 by Indorata-Servicos e Gestao Lda, represented by T Wallentin, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested rejection of its application for a Community trade mark and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to register the sign ‘HAIRTRANSFER’ as a Community trade mark for the remaining goods and services which remain the subject of dispute also and to publish that registration;

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark ‘HAIRTRANSFER’ — Application No 2 619 039.

               Goods or services:

               Goods and services in Classes 8, 22, 41 and 44 (inter alia, electric and non-electric depilation appliances, artificial and real hair, provision of training, in particular arranging and conducting of further-training seminars and hygienic and beauty care, in particular hair care and treatment).

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal to register by the examiner.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               The mark sought is distinctive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
               The mark sought is not exclusively descriptive within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-467/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Genova): Ministero delle Finanze v Eribrand SpA (Export refunds — Articles 47 and 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Extension of time-limits)

text:
C 200/6                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                23.8.2003
1.    Article 22(1)(c) and (i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/           M.       Wathelet,       R.      Schintgen        (Rapporteur)       and
      71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security                C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      schemes to employed persons and their families moving within            D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
      the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regula-                N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
      tion (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 must be interpreted                L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      as also applying to a pensioner and members of his family who           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      reside in a Member State other than the one which is liable for         10 July 2003, in which it has ruled:
      payment of that pension, and who benefit on that basis,
      following their registration with the institution of the place of
      residence, from the system laid down by Article 28 of that              Article 9 of and Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Official of the
      regulation, where those socially insured persons wish to go to          European Communities and Article 79 of the Conditions of Employ-
      the Member State liable for payment of the pension in order to          ment of Other Servants of the European Communities must be
      receive medical treatment there.                                        interpreted as precluding the application to the local staff employed in
                                                                              the representation of the Commission of the European Communities in
                                                                              Vienna (Austria) of the Austrian legislation on labour relations in
2.    The institution competent to issue the prior authorisation              establishments in Part II of the Bundesgesetz betreffend die Arbeitsver-
      mentioned in the said Article 22(1)(c) and (i) where the                fassung (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz) (Federal law on labour relations) of
      application for authorisation concerns socially insured persons         13 December 1973.
      in such a position is the institution of the place of residence of
      the persons concerned.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                           of 10 July 2003
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
in Case C-165/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Betriebsrat der Vertretung der                     in Case C-467/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Europäischen Kommission in Österreich v European                              the Corte d'appello di Genova): Ministero delle Finanze v
Communities, Commission of the European Commu-                                                           Eribrand SpA (1)
                                nities (1)
                                                                              (Export refunds — Articles 47 and 48 of Regulation (EEC)
(Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities                               No 3665/87 — Extension of time-limits)
— Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Local
staff — Representation of the Commission in Austria —
Applicability of national legislation concerning the represen-                                           (2003/C 200/11)
        tation of workers and defence of their interests)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (2003/C 200/10)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                  the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)                             In Case C-467/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              from the Corte d'appello di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Ministero delle Finanze and Eribrand SpA, formerly Eurico
In Case C-165/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Italia SpA — on the interpretation of Articles 47 and 48 of
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in                     of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ
Österreich and European Communities, Commission of the                        1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
European Communities, on the interpretation of Article 9 of                   No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994 (OJ 1994 L 191, p. 5) — the
and Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the                     Court (First Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of
European Communities and Article 79 of the Conditions of                      the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities,                     C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it held that:
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/7
1.    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November                   Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Ireland against the
      1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of                     Commission of the European Communities
      the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as
      amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of
      26 July 1994 imposes no limit on the length of time by which
                                                                                (Case C-199/03)
      a time-limit may be extended for the benefit of an exporter
      under Article 47(4) of the regulation. It is for the competent
      national authorities to set the length of extensions of time in
      accordance with the particular circumstances of the case, taking                                 (2003/C 200/13)
      particular account of the degree of diligence with which the
      exporter seeking the extension of time has acted, the nature of
      the difficulties confronting the exporter and the amount of time
      which it will reasonably take to overcome those difficulties.
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
2.    Exporters have no right to apply directly to national courts for        Communities on 13 May 2003 by Ireland, represented by
      an extension of time of a specific duration but do have a legal         D. J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC and
      right of recourse against decisions taken by competent national         P. McGarry, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
      authorities under Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87, as            bourg.
      amended by Regulation No 1829/94. The detailed rules and
      parameters of any such procedure shall be governed by the
      national law of the Member States, in accordance with the               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      principles of effectiveness and equivalence as defined in Commu-
      nity law.
                                                                              1.    declare the action admissible;
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                              2.    annul Commission Decision C(2003)99 reducing assis-
                                                                                tance granted from the European Social Fund under
                                                                                Commission Decisions C(94)3226 of 29 November 1994
                                                                                (operational programme for human resources develop-
                                                                                ment) in the framework of the project 940002IR1;
                                                                                C(94)1972 of 29 July 1994 (operational programme for
                                                                                tourism), in the framework of the project 940001IR1;
                                                                                C(94)2613 of 15 November 1994 (operational programme
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht                             for industrial development), in the framework of the
Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 March 2003 in the                            project 940004IR1, approving operational programmes
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH                                  under objective 1 in Ireland, in whole or in part, or in
against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the                             respect of such periods or amounts as the Court should
                       Bundesversicherungsamt                                       determine;
                             (Case C-193/03)
                                                                              3.    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
                                                                                ings.
                             (2003/C 200/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Stuttgart
(Social Court, Stuttgart) of 19 March 2003, received at the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Court Registry on 9 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebskrankenkasse der Robert Bosch GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Bundesversi-
cherungsamt on the following question:                                        1.    The Applicant submits that it is apparent from the
                                                                                contested decision that the Commission manifestly failed
                                                                                to properly consider the evidence furnished by Ireland
Whether Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1)                                which unambiguously demonstrated that in fact there was
precludes a practice, in implementation of Paragraph 13(3)                          no overpayment or overfinancing in relation to ESF
SGB V, of flat-rate reimbursement by an insurer of costs for                        eligible projects. Because of a mistaken characterisation
medical treatment in another Community country, on the                              of the exercise carried out by Ireland to demonstrate that
model of similar provisions on small amounts.                                       no such claim of overpayment or overfinancing occurred,
                                                                                and because of its mistaken belief that the evidence
                                                                                adduced by Ireland somehow would have an impact on
(1) OJ L 74 of 27.3.1972, p. 1.                                                     the financial tables, the Commission failed to properly
                                                                                consider the evidence and drew incorrect conclusions
                                                                                from certain elements.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 November 1997 in Case T-101/96: Maria Elisabeth Wolf v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Open competition - Non-admission to the tests - Professional experience required)

text:
20 . 12 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 387/ 19
Communities,          residing at        Sterrebeek      ( Belgium ),      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                                           of 7 November 1997
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 in Case T-2 18/95 : Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' Srl v.
SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the                                   Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and,
                                                                         (Agriculture — Fisheries — Aquaculture and establishment
initially, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and, subsequently,
                                                                         of protected marine areas — Community financial aid —
Florence Clotuche ) — application for annulment of the
decision, dated 26 March 1996, of the selection board in                 Declaration of ineligibility of certain expenditure —
                                                                                Action for annulment — Action for damages)
competition COM/A/955 , by which it decided not to
admit the applicant to the oral test in the competition                                               ( 97/C 387/35 )
and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of
the    initial   decision      of that  selection   board,     dated
16 February 1996 — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Chamber ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and
A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                         In Case T-218/95 : Azienda Agricola ' Le Canne' Sri,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                         established in Porto Viro, Italy, represented by Giulio
                                                                         Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonetto, of
1 . dismisses the action;                                                the Padua Bar, and by Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg
                                                                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to                  latter's Chambers, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v. Commission
     pay one third of the applicant's costs.                             of the European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March
                                                                         and Hubertus Van Vliet ) — application, first, for
(') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                         annulment of the decision by the Commission to reduce
                                                                         Community financial aid originally granted and, secondly,
                                                                         for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant
                                                                         as a result of that reduction — the Court of First Instance
                                                                         ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                         C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                        of 6 November 1997
                                                                         7 November 1997, in which it :
in Case T-101 /96 : Maria Elisabeth Wolf v. Commission of
                  the European Communities (')                           1 . dismisses the action ;
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the
            tests — Professional experience required)                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                            ( 97/C 387/34 )
                                                                         (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                  (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-101 /96 : Maria Elisabeth Wolf, a member of the
auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange , v.                                                  of 7 November 1997
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Julian
Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — application for                       in Case T-84/96: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de Papel
annulment of the decision of the selection board in                          Lda v. Commission of the European Communities (')
competition COM/A/955 not to admit the applicant to
that competition, and for compensation for the non-                      (European Social Fund — Decision to reduce financial
material damage suffered by her as a result of that                          assistance — Duty to provide a statement of reasons)
decision — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                            ( 97/C 387/36 )
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and A.
Kalogeropoulos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
6 November 1997, in which it:
1.   dismisses the action ;                                              In Case T-84/96 : Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de Papel
                                                                         Lda , established in Lisbon, represented by Miguel Ferrão
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          Castelo Branco, then by João Caniço Gomes, both of the
                                                                         Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
(") OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .                                           the Chambers of Francois Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe , v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Maria
                                                                         Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson ) — application for


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-104/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 97/13/EC — Telecommunication services — Contribution to research and development)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 16 June 2005
   in Case C-104/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 97/13/EC - Telecommunication services - Contribution to research and development)
   (2005/C 193/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-104/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-F. Pasquier and M. Shotter) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 February 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(2) and 8(1) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services, read in conjunction with the annex to that directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-418/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht in Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks in respect of services — Registration — Services provided in connection with retail trade — Specification of content of services — Similarity between the services in question and goods or other services)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-418/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht in Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade marks in respect of services - Registration - Services provided in connection with retail trade - Specification of content of services - Similarity between the services in question and goods or other services)
   (2005/C 217/08)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-418/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), made by decision of 15 October 2002, received at the Court on 20 November 2002, in the proceedings concerning Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The concept of ‘services’ referred to by First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, in particular in Article 2, covers services provided in connection with retail trade in goods.

               2.

               For the purposes of registration of a trade mark for such services, it is not necessary to specify in detail the service(s) in question. However, details must be provided with regard to the goods or types of goods to which those services relate.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) 10 December 2003 in Case C-204/02 P: Colin Joynson v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/13

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   10 December 2003
   in Case C-204/02 P: Colin Joynson v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements - Standard leases for public houses - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
   (2004/C 94/24)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-204/02 P: Colin Joynson, residing in Manchester (United Kingdom), represented by S. Ferdinand, Solicitor: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2002 in Case T 231/99 Joynson v Commission [2002] ECR II 2085, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner, assisted by N. Khan), with an address for service in Luxembourg, Six Continents plc, formerly Bass plc, established in London (Agents: J. Block and J. Baxter), with an address for service in Luxembourg, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Third Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and J. P. Puissochet, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Joynson shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002.


title: Case C-519/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 October 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Liften BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/12

         Appeal brought on 11 October 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Liften BV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-519/11 P)
   2011/C 355/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Liften BV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, N. Lorjé, N. Al-Ani, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court of 13 July 2011 in so far as the General Court rejected the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               give judgment in this case and annul Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final (1) of 21 February 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators on the basis of the relevant pleas put forward at first instance and/or reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;

               —

               in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward five grounds in support of its appeal.

               1.

               Infringement of Article 81(1) EC (now Article 101(1) TFEU) since the infringements are not capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States and the Commission unlawfully initiated the procedure.

               2.

               Breach of the ne bis in idem principle.

               3.

               Breach of the principle of proportionality as a result of the setting of a disproportionate starting amount of the fine.

               4.

               Infringement of the maximum amount of the fine provided for in Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003, (2) the presumption of innocence set out in Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(2) of the ECHR, the nulla poena sine lege principle set out in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of proportionality in Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle that penalties must fit the offence and the principle of personal liability for penalties on account of the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liable for the entire amount of the fine calculated on the basis of the group turnover.

               5.

               Error of assessment and unlawful omission by the General Court, in so far as it failed to make any use of its unlimited jurisdiction in the area of fines, inter alia as regards the starting amount of the fine, the multiplier for deterrence and the cooperation outside the context of the 2002 Leniency Notice.

      (1)  Summary in OJ 2008 C 75, p. 19.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-3/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rossano (Italy)) — Franco Affatato v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Successive contracts — Abuse — Preventive measures — Sanctions — Conversion of fixed-term contracts to a contract of unlimited duration — Prohibition — Compensation for damage — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/11

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Rossano (Italy)) — Franco Affatato v Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza
   (Case C-3/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Successive contracts - Abuse - Preventive measures - Sanctions - Conversion of fixed-term contracts to a contract of unlimited duration - Prohibition - Compensation for damage - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2011/C 30/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Rossano (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Franco Affatato

      Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Rossano — Interpretation of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Compatibility of certain provisions of national law on socially useful workers/publicly useful workers — National legislation that allows not indicating the reason for the first a fixed-term contract for workers in the education sector — Concept of a state body — Inclusion of a person with the characteristics of Poste Italiane SpA

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The first 12 questions referred by the Tribunale di Rossano (Italy), by decision of 21 December 2009, are manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it does not preclude national legislation, such as that in Article 36(5) of Legislative Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001 laying down general rules concerning the organisation of employment in public administrations, which prohibits, in the event of abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts by a public sector employer, the conversion of those contracts to a contract of unlimited duration, where the internal legal order of the Member State concerned contains, in the sector under consideration, other effective measures to avoid and, as necessary, penalise the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts. Nevertheless, it is for the national court to assess to what extent the conditions for application and the effective implementation of the relevant provisions of domestic law constitute an adequate measure for the prevention and, as necessary, penalisation of the abusive use by the public administration of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships;

                           —

                           it is, as such, in no way liable to affect the fundamental political and constitutional structures or the essential functions of the Member State concerned within the meaning of Article 4(2) TEU.

               3.

               That framework agreement must be interpreted as meaning that measures provides for by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in order to penalise the abusive use of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships must not be less favourable than those governing similar internal situations or make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by the legal order of the European Union. It is for the national court to assess to what extent the provisions of domestic law intended to penalise the abusive use by the public administration of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships comply with those principles.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-186/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of 4 April 2001 in the case of Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany — Kreiswehrersatzamt Schwäbisch Gmünd

text:
14.7.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/49
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Where a lessee fills up a leased car in the name and at the
                                                                       expense of the lessor at filling stations, is there a supply of fuel
—     set aside the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by          by the lessor to the lessee and must tax be paid on this supply
      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities          at the place of supply within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of
      (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v European          Directive 77/388/EEC or is the ‘onward supply’ included in the
      Environment Agency;                                              lessor’s supply of a service that is taxable under Article 9 of
                                                                       Directive 77/388/EEC?
—     proceed to adjudicate afresh in the matter, and thus:
      —     annul the decision cancelling internal competition         (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
            EEA/T/99/1, communicated to the appellant by
            letter of 27 September 1999;
      —     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 transfer-
            ring the appellant from the Commission to the
            European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it
            classifies him in grade A5, step 3, with effect from
            1 November 1999;
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
      —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets      icht Stuttgart by order of 4 April 2001 in the case of
            of proceedings.                                            Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany —
                                                                                Kreiswehrersatzamt Schwäbisch Gmünd
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Case C-186/01)
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in                                 (2001/C 200/88)
      finding that the Commission’s threats ‘definitively to
      cease using transfers in future’ for the benefit of the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      European Environment Agency in the event of a refusal            European Communities by order of 4 April 2001 by the
      to cancel internal competition EEA/T/99/1 did not have           Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Administrative Court, Stuttgart),
      the effect of vitiating the way in which the appointing          which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
      authority had exercised its discretion by proceeding to          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Dory v
      cancel the competition in question.                              Federal Republic of Germany Kreiswehrersatzamt (District
                                                                       Recruiting Office) Schwäbisch Gmünd on the following ques-
—     The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in
                                                                       tion, in particular with regard to the interpretation of Article 2
      imposing conditions for appointment as an established
                                                                       of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
      official which are not provided for in the third paragraph
                                                                       tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
      of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations and in failing to
                                                                       as regards access to employment, vocational training and
      verify whether the European Environment Agency had in
                                                                       promotion, and working conditions (1):
      fact reconstituted the appellant’s career as regards both
      the his grade on establishment and his seniority in step.
                                                                       Does German compulsory military service for men only
                                                                       conflict with European law?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of 22 February 2001 in the case of Auto Lease
            Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für Finanzen
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                         (Case C-185/01)                               Verwaltungssenats Salzburg by order of that court of 25
                                                                       April 2001 in the case of Francisco Javier Gonzales
                         (2001/C 200/87)                                                             Moreno
                                                                                (Case C-188/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 22 February 2001 by the
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                                    (2001/C 200/89)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Auto Lease Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Finanzen on the following question (1):                                European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-


title: Case T-15/10 R: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission (Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/19

         Order of the General Court of 26 May 2010 — Noko Ngele v Commission
   (Case T-15/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 195/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Essentially, an application to have the activity of the ‘Centre pour le développement de l’entreprise (CDE)’ in Belgium declared illegitimate, to prevent the Commission and its agents from entering into financial relations with the CDE or from recognising the legitimacy of the CDE and to order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of money if the Commission recognises the legitimacy of that body

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-12/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Iran Insurance v Council

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/31

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Iran Insurance v Council
   (Case T-12/11)
   2011/C 63/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP (1) of 25 October 2010 and paragraph 21 of section B to the Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and annul the decision contained in the letter of the Council received on 23 November 2010;

               —

               Declare article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) of 26 July 2010 and Articles 16(2) and 26 of Council Regulation No 961/2010 inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annulment of paragraph 21 of section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October and of paragraph 21 of section B to Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and for annulment of Articles 16(2) and 26 of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 insofar as they relate to the applicant and for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the Council to the applicant of 28 October 2010.
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant claims that the court has jurisdiction to review paragraph 21, section B of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP and paragraph 21, section B of Annex VIII to Council Regulation No 961/2010, as well as the decision of 28 October 2010 and their conformity with the general principles of European law.

               In addition, the specific reasons for the listing of the applicant are wrong and the requirements of Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and of Article 16(2)(a)(b) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 are not met. Those provisions should be held inapplicable to the applicant. The Council made a manifest error in fact and erred in law. Therefore paragraph 21, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 as well as paragraph 21, section B, of the Annex VIII to Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 should be annulled.

               In support of this application, it is also argued that the 2010 Regulation and the 2010 Decision violate the applicant’s rights of defence and, in particular, its right to have a fair hearing since it did not receive any evidence or documents to support the allegations of the Council, and since the allegations made in 2010 Decision and Regulation are very vague, unclear and arguably impossible for the Iran Insurance Company to respond to. Moreover, the applicant was refused an access to the documentation and the right to be heard. This also constitutes a lack of motivation.

               Furthermore, Article 24(3) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP requires the Council to communicate and notify its decision including the grounds for listing, and article 24(4) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP provides for the review of the decision when observations are submitted. The Council violated both provisions. Since Article 24(3) and 24(4) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP are also repeated in Article 36(3) and 36(4) of Council Regulation No 961/2010, a violation of the latter is also taking place.

               It is also claimed that the Council, in its assessment of the applicant’s situation, violated the principle of sound administration.

               In addition, the Council, in its assessment of the applicant’s situation, violated the principle of legitimate expectations.

               The applicant also claims that the Council has violated the applicant’s right of property and the principle of proportionality. Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 should be declared inapplicable to the applicant. Furthermore, by indiscriminately prohibiting insurance or reinsurance contracts to all Iranian entities, Article 12 of Council Decision 2010/423/CFSP and Article 26 of Council Regulation No 961/2010 also violate the principle of proportionality. Therefore, these provisions should also be declared inapplicable to the applicant.

               Moreover, the applicant claims that Council Regulation No 961/2010 violates Article 215(2) and (3) TFEU, as its legal basis, as well as Article 40 TEU.

               Finally, the applicant contends that the 2010 Regulation and the 2010 Decision were adopted in violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

      (1)  Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81).

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

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


title: Case C-209/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Walter Endress v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directives 90/619/EEC and 92/96/EEC — Direct life assurance — Right of cancellation — Lack of information on the conditions governing the exercise of that right — Expiry of the cancellation period one year after payment of the first premium — Conformity with Directives 90/619/EEC and 92/96/EEC)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Walter Endress v Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG
   (Case C-209/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Directives 90/619/EEC and 92/96/EEC - Direct life assurance - Right of cancellation - Lack of information on the conditions governing the exercise of that right - Expiry of the cancellation period one year after payment of the first premium - Conformity with Directives 90/619/EEC and 92/96/EEC)
   2014/C 52/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Walter Endress

      Defendant: Allianz Lebensversicherungs AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50), in conjunction with Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) — Annuity — Right of cancellation of the policy-holder — Time-limit — Obligation to provide the policy-holder with information — National legislation under which the policy-holder loses the right of cancellation one year after payment of the first premium even if he has not been correctly informed of the conditions of exercising the right.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992, read in conjunction with Article 31 of the latter directive, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium, where the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 3 May 1996 in Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany, supported by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, v. Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures - Suspension of the operation of a measure - State aids - ECSC Treaty)

text:
No C 197/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            6 . 7 . 96
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                        of 2 May 1996                                                          of 2 May 1996
in Case C-133/94 : Commission of the European                       in Case C-231/94 (reference to the Court for a preliminary
          Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium                         ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Faaborg-Gelting Linien
(Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the                               A/S v. Finanzamt Flensburg ( 1 )
      environment — Council Directive 85/337/EEC)                   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Restaurant
                         96/C 197/07                                transactions on board ship — Place of taxable
                                                                                transactions)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/08 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        published in the European Court Reports)                    In Case C-231 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                    Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S and Finanzamt Flensburg on the
In Case C-133/94 : Commission of the European                       interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
Communities (Agents : Rolf Wägenbauer and Marc H. van               17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
der Woude ) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder ),           Member States relating to turnover taxes — common
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( OJ
Ernst Rôder ) — application for a declaration that, by not          L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ), in particular Articles 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 thereof
completely and correctly transposing into Belgian Law               — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of C. N. Kakouris,
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the                 President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini
assessment of the effects of certain public and private             ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn,
projects on the environment ( OJ L 175 , 1985 , p . 40 ), the       Judges, Advocate-General : G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. von
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May
that Directive and Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty — the       1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.          restaurant transactions are to be regarded as supplies of
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; P.        services within the meaning of Article 6 (1 ) of the Sixth
Léger, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May          harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :                   turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
                                                                    uniform basis of assessment, which, under Article 9 (1 ) of
                                                                    the Directive, are deemed to be carried out at the place
                                                                    where the supplier has established his business.
1 . by not completely and correctly transposing into Belgian
                                                                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
    Law Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on
    the assessment ofthe effects ofcertain public and private
    projects on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
    and under Article 189 of the EC Treaty;                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 May 1996
2 , the Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs;             in Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                    supported by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
3 , the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its           (Interim measures — Suspension of the operation of a
    own costs .                                                                measure — State aids — ECSC Treaty)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/09 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(M OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                    Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) supported by Neue
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 7 . 96              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 197/5
Maxhùtte Stahlwerke GmbH ( represented by Rainer M.                     products ' and methods of administrative cooperation for
Bierwagen ) v. Commission of the European Communities                   the application of the customs procedure applicable to
(Agents : Paul F. Nemitz and Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) —                  certain products originating in and coming from the Faroe
application for the suspension of the operation of                      Islands ( OJ L 344, 1974, p . 1 ), Council Regulation ( EEC )
Commission Decision 96/178/ECSC of 18 October 1995 on                   No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery
State aid that Bavaria granted to the ECSC steel undertaking            of import duties or export duties which have not been
Neue Maxhutte Stahlwerke GmbH , Sulzbach-Rosenberg                      required of the person liable for payment on goods entered
( OJ L 53 , 1996 , p . 41 ) — the President of the Court made an        for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such
order on 3 May 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 duties ( OJ L 197, 1979 , p . 1 ) and Commission Regulation
follows :                                                               ( EEC ) No 2164/91 of 23 July 1991 laying down provisions
                                                                        for the implementation of Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council
                                                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 ( OJ L 201 , 1991 , p. 16 ), the
1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                  Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                        President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.
                                                                        Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges ; P.
2 , tbe costs are reserved.                                             Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1996 , in
                                                                        which it rules :
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                           1 , Council Regulation (EEC) No 2051 /74 of 1 August
                                                                                1974 on the customs procedure applicable to certain
                                                                                products originating in and coming from the Faroe
                                                                                Islands, definition of the concept of 'originating
                                                                                products ' and methods of administrative cooperation
                                                                                for the application ofthe customs procedure applicable
                                                                                to certain products originating in and coming from the
                                                                                Faroe Islands, and Council Regulation (EEC)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance
                                                                                recovery of import duties or export duties which have
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                      not been required of the person liable for payment on
                           of 14 May 1996                                       goods entered for a customs procedure involving the
                                                                                obligation to pay such duties, are to be interpreted as
 in Joined Cases C-153/94 and C-204/94 ( references for a
                                                                                meaning that the customs authorities of a Member
 preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                                State may, on the basis of the conclusions of a
 Bench Division ): The Queen v. Commissioners of Customs
                                                                                Community mission of enquiry, proceed with the
 and Excise, ex parte Faroe Seafood Co. Ltd and Foraya
                                                                                post-clearance recovery of customs duties on goods
 Fiskasela L/F (Case C-153/94 ); ex parte John Smith and
                                                                                imported from the Faroe Islands, even if, in reliance on
 Celia Smith trading as Arthur Smith (a firm ) ( Case
                              C-204/94 ) C )                                    EUR. 1 certificates issued in good faith by the
                                                                                competent Faroese authorities, they did not levy
  (Customs procedure applicable to certain products                             customs duties at the time of importation; even if the
 originating in the Faroe Islands — Concept of originating                      Faroese authorities dispute the conclusions of the
    products — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties)                       mission of enquiry in so far as they relate to the
                             ( 96/C 197/ 10                                     interpretation of the relevant Community customs
                                                                                legislation and maintain that the certificates are in
                                                                                force; and even if the issues disputed were not referred
                                                                                to the Committee on Origin established pursuant to
                (Language of the case: English)                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 802/68 of27 June 1 968
                                                                                on the common definition of the concept of the origin
                                                                                of goods ;
  In Joined Cases C-153/94 and C-204/94 : reference to the
  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High Court
  of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom ), for a               2 , the criteria for defining 'Faroe Island vessels ' set out in
  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                      Annex IV to Regulation (EEC) No 2051 /74 and
  court between The Queen and Commissioners of Customs                           explanatory note 4 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC)
  and Excise, ex parte Faroe Seafood Co . Ltd . and Foroya                       No 3184/74 are to be applied conjunctively;
  Fiskasola L/F ( Case C-153/94 ); ex parte John Smith and
  Celia Smith trading as Arthur Smith (a firm ) ( Case
  C-204/94 ) on the interpretation of Council Regulation                    3 , the word 'crew' in Annex IV to Regulation (EEC)
  ( EEC ) No 2051 /74 of 1 August 1974 on the customs                            No 2051 /74 and explanatory note 4 of Annex I to
  procedure applicable to certain products originating in and                     Regulation (EEC) (EEC) No 3 1 84/74 does not include
  coming from the Faroe Islands ( OJ L 212 , 1974, p . 33 ),                     persons not forming part of the vessel's normal
  Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3184/74 of 6 December                          complement who are engaged in addition thereto on a
   1 974 concerning the definition of the concept of 'originating                 particular voyage or part of a voyage to work as


title: Case F-93/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Acosta Iborra and Others v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/44

         Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Acosta Iborra and Others v Commission
   (Case F-93/07)
   (2007/C 283/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Acosta Iborra and Others (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority publishing the list of officials promoted under the 2006 promotion procedure, in so far as the Commission did not take into account the applicants' eligibility for promotion in respect of the 2006 promotion procedure and in so far as their names are not included on the list of promoted officials;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decisions of 6 June 2007 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicants under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) on 16 February 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are relying on very similar pleas to those advanced in Case F-92/07, the notice for which is published in the same issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of 28 February 1997 in the case of Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH (Case C-99/97)

text:
No C 131/10            r EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            country ( Denmark ), travels to a third EU country
                                                                                ( England ), where the person suffers injury, to receive
                                                                                hospital treatment free-of-charge in the second EU
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                            country ( Denmark ) for the injury suffered, where the
those in Case C-56/97 (2 ); the period prescribed by the                        hospital treatment has been interrupted by the citizen
Directive expired on 23 July 1993 .                                             returning to Denmark where the hospital treatment is
                                                                                continued ? It is assumed that what is involved is a
                                                                                continuous course of treatment.
(') OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 70 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
                                                                           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Arhus, by
a letter of 5 March 1997 in the case of Elly Bach v. Arhus
                             Amtskommune                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                             ( Case C-97/97)                               28 February 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
                               ( 97/C 131 /24 )                            freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm
                                                                                Verlag Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-99/97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                ( 97/C 131 /25 )
European Communities by letter of 5 March 1997 from
 Retten i Arhus (Arhus Court), which was received at the
 Court Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling
 in the case between Elly Bach and Arhus Amtskommune
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
 on the following questions :
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                           Oberlandesgericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna )
                                                                           of 28 February 1997, which was received at the Court
 1 . In the application of Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC )                Registry on 7 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       No 1408/71           and Annex VI thereto, point B ( 2 ),           case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
       should that provision, including the requirement as                 Medienwesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH on
       regards a stay, be interpreted strictly according to its            the following question:
       wording, or may the provision be interpreted as
       meaning that an EU citizen is always entitled to
       medical treatment free-of-charge in one Member State,
       even if the injury occurred, and the first part of the               Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
       medical treatment was given, in another Member                       precluding application of legislation of Member State A
       State ?                                                              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
                                                                            from selling in Member State A a periodically published
                                                                            magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
       In the reply, it should be assumed that what is                      puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
       involved is a continuous course of treatment which                   Member State B ?
       was interrupted in one Member State and continued in
       another. It is thus not a question of follow-up
       treatment .
  2 . May the term 'reside' in Article 31 be interpreted
       purposively in order to cover an EU country where a
       citizen, under other EU legislation, lawfully stays for              Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of
       up to six months of the year in a summer house                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       property ? It should be noted that the stay is not of an                                          Luxembourg
        occupational character, and that the citizen is not                                           Case C-100/97 )
        registered in that country.
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /26
   3 . Regardless of the scope of Article 31 in Regulation
        No 1408/71 , is not Annex VI, point B ( 2 ), per se a
        sufficient basis for a citizen resident in one EU country            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
        ( Spain ), who, during a holiday stay in another EU                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case C-554/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 31 December 2009 — Andreas Michael Seeger v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 31 December 2009 — Andreas Michael Seeger v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart
   (Case C-554/09)
   2010/C 80/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Andreas Michael Seeger

      Respondent: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart

      Question referred

   Can the term ‘materials’ in the second indent of Article 13(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 (1) be interpreted as also capable of including packaging materials, such as empty drinks bottles (empties), carried by a wine and drinks merchant who runs a shop, makes deliveries to his customers once a week and, while doing so, collects the empties to take them to his wholesaler?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.


title: Case C-194/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Concept of waste — Excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-194/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Concept of ‘waste’ - Excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use)
   (2008/C 51/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent, and G. Bambara, avvocato)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — National law excluding excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use from the scope of the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, in so far as Article 10 of Law No 93 of 23 March 2001 concerning provisions on the environment and Article 1(17) and (19) of Law No 443 of 21 December 2001 delegating to the Government matters of infrastructure and strategic installations of production and of other action to boost production excluded from the scope of the national legislation relating to waste excavated earth and rocks intended for actual re-use for filling, backfilling, embanking or as aggregates, with the exception of those from contaminated and decontaminated sites with a concentration of pollutants above the acceptable limits laid down by the regulations in force, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-83/03 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Construction of a marina at Fossacesia)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-83/03 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Construction of a marina at Fossacesia)
   (2005/C 182/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-83/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Amorosi and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli, avocat) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 February 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, since the Abruzzo Region did not properly determine whether the project for the construction of a marina at Fossacesia (Chieti) — a project covered by the list in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — had characteristics requiring it to be made subject to a procedure to assess its effects on the environment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-371/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt): Björnekulla Fruktindustrier AB v Procordia Food AB (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 12(2)(a) — Revocation of rights conferred by the trade mark — Trade mark which has become the common name in the trade — Relevant classes of persons for purposes of the assessment)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-371/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt): Björnekulla Fruktindustrier AB v Procordia Food AB (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 12(2)(a) - Revocation of rights conferred by the trade mark - Trade mark which has become the common name in the trade - Relevant classes of persons for purposes of the assessment)
   (2004/C 118/42)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-371/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Svea hovrätt (Svea Court of Appeal) (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Björnekulla Fruktindustrier AB and Procordia Food AB — on the interpretation of Article 12(2)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: V. Skouris, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 12(2)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that in cases where intermediaries participate in the distribution to the consumer or the end user of a product which is the subject of a registered trade mark, the relevant classes of persons whose views fall to be taken into account in determining whether that trade mark has become the common name in the trade for the product in question comprise all consumers and end users and, depending on the features of the market concerned, all those in the trade who deal with that product commercially.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 7.12.2002.


title: Case T-449/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2009 — Rotter v OHIM (Shape of an arrangement of sausages) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of an arrangement of sausages — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2009 — Rotter v OHIM (Shape of an arrangement of sausages)
   (Case T-449/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of an arrangement of sausages - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 141/80
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Rotter (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Müller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2007 (Case R 1415/2006-4) relating to the registration of a three-dimensional sign representing an arrangement of sausages as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Thomas Rotter to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-56/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015  — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v OHIM (Brauwelt)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/34

         Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v OHIM (Brauwelt)
   (Case T-56/15)
   (2015/C 118/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Brauwelt’– Application No 1 2 0 38  551

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1121/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.