title: Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-238/96)

text:
No C 269/ 12             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
Communities on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the                       competent authorities of a Member State are to have the
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen ,                    same force in other Member States as findings of the
Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European                           competent authorities of each of those Member States ?
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of            (>) OJ No L 38 , 9 . 2 . 1977 , p . 1 .
the Commission, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg .                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 38 , 9 . 2 . 1977 , p . 20 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
       Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
       batteries and accumulators containing certain                      Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Ireland against the
       dangerous substances (') and Commission Directive                             Commission of the European Communities
       93/86/EEC ( 2 ) of 4 October 1993 adapting the                                                 Case C-238/96 )
       aforementioned Council Directive to technical progress,                                         96/C 269/27 )
       the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under the EC Treaty,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       costs .                                                            European Communities on 10 July 1996 by Ireland,
                                                                          represented by Michael A. Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Dublin Castle, Dublin 2 , acting as Agent of Ireland, assisted
                                                                          by Mary Finlay, Senior Counsel and David Barniville,
                                                                          Barrister-at-Law, with an address for service of documents
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5             in Luxembourg at the Embassy of Ireland , 28 route d'Arlon,
of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States to whom               Luxembourg.
directives are addressed to adopt the measures necessary for
the implementation of such directives within the time limits              The applicant claims that the Court should :
prescribed therein . The time limits in question expired on
 18 September 1992 and 31 December 1993 respectively but                  — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
the Federal Republic of Germany has not to date adopted                         establishing the European Community, that
the necessary transposition measures .                                          Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                                the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                       respect of expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51 .                                  of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1 993 ( 1 ) is
                                                                                void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl
                                                                                26 222 656,62 ( being 10 % of the expenditure declared
                                                                                by Ireland for public storage of beef for 1990 ) from the
                                                                                expenditure declared by Ireland for public storage of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel,                       beef for 1992,
Mons, by judgment of that court of 28 June 1 996 in the case
 of Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v.                        — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
                      E. Amelynck and Others                                    establishing the European Community, that
                           ( Case C-237/96 )                                     Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                                the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
                             ( 96/C 269/26 )
                                                                                respect of expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section
                                                                                of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is
 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                         void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl
  ( Court of Appeal ), Mons, of 28 June 1996 , which was                         24 020 455,64 ( being 5 % of the expenditure declared
  received at the Court Registry on 9 July 1996 , for a                          by Ireland for public storage of beef for 1991 ) from the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre des Finances du                      expenditure declared by Ireland for public storage of
  Royaume de Belgique v. E. Amelynck and Others on the                           beef for 1992 ,
  following question :
                                                                           — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
  Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 222/77 (') and ( EEC )                              establishing the European Community, that
  No 223/77 ( 2 ), which lay down the rule that evidence of the                  Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
  Community nature of goods is, without exception , to be                        the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
  furnished solely by transit document T2 or T2 L, consistent                    respect of expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section
  with Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty and are they                           of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
  compatible with Articles 37 ( 2 ) and 39 ( 2 ) of Regulation                   Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is
  ( EEC ) No 222/77, which provide that the findings of the                      void in so far as it purports to disallow the sum of £ Irl
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 269/ 13
     9 613 206,00 from expenditure declared by Ireland for                     Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 in each of the
     public storage of beef for 1991 being 2% of such                          said years constitutes an infringement of the Treaty
     expenditure,                                                              and/or an infringement of rule of law relating to the
                                                                               application of the Treaty;
— declare , pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community, that                          4 . in so far as the amount of the corrections determined by
     Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on                       the Commission for the years 1990 and 1991 exceed the
     the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in                   amount of the probable losses to the EAGGF in each of
     respect of expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section                  the said years as a consequence of irregularities
     of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                       attributable to the alleged failure by the Irish authorities
     Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is                    to fulfil their obligations under Article 8 of Regulation
     void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl                  ( EEC ) No 729/70 , they constitute a penalty and as such
     8 862 144,00 from the expenditure declared by Ireland                     infringe the Treaty and/or rules of law relating to the
     for the public storage of beef for 1992 being 2 % of such                 application of the Treaty;
     expenditure ,
                                                                        5 . the failure by the Commission to adhere to the published
— make such further or other order as may be necessary                         guidelines on the calculation of financial consequences
     and appropriate for the purpose of the relief which                       when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of
     Ireland seeks in these proceedings,                                       accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee ( DOC.VI/2 16/93 of
                                                                               3 June 1993 — the Belle Group Report ) constitutes an
                                                                               infringement of an essential procedural requirement
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                               and/or an infringement of the Treaty and/or of a rule of
     pay the costs of these proceedings .                                      law in relation to the application of the Treaty .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Breach of Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( 3 )
Breach of Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 ( 2 )               Ireland submits that in 1991 and 1992 there was no
                                                                        Community rule within the meaning of Article 3 of
Ireland submits that the Decision is invalid in so far as it            Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of which Ireland was in breach
disallows £ Irl 26 222 656,62 ( being 10% of the                        in accepting separate tenders from companies within the
expenditure declared and already cleared for Ireland in                 same group of companies and, accordingly , the Commission
respect of the year 1990 ) and £ Irl 24 020 455,64 ( being 5 %          Decision refusing to charge 2 % of public storage costs in
of the expenditure declared and already cleared for Ireland             Ireland in 1991 and 1992 is invalid .
for the year 1991 ) from the expenditure declared by Ireland
for 1992 on one or more of the following grounds :                      If the Court determines that any such Community rule
                                                                        existed in 1991 and 1992 then the Commission is precluded
1 . the failure by the Commission to state any or any valid             by the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectation
      reasons for the quantum of the financial corrections              and proportionality and by the criteria in the Belle Group
      determined following its conclusion that during the               Report from refusing to charge the said 2 % of the public
      years 1990 and 1991 the Irish authorities did not fulfil          storage costs in Ireland to the EAGGF and accordingly the
                                                                        Decision is invalid .
      their obligations under Article 8 of Regulation ( FTC )
      No 729/70 constitutes a lack of essential procedural
      requirements and/or an infringement of the Treaty                  (>) OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .
      and/or a rule of law relating to the application of the            ( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the
      Treaty;                                                                  financing of the common agricultural policy ( OJ No L 94 , 28 . 4 .
                                                                               1970 , p. 13 ).
                                                                         (') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989
2 . the failure by the Commission to state any or any valid                    laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention
      reasons for its conclusion that very large amounts had                   measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
      been wrongly charged to EAGGF in each of the years                       p. 5 ).
      1990 and 1991 by reason of the alleged failure of the
      Irish authorities to fulfil their obligations under Article 8
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 in each of the said years
      constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural
      requirement and/or an infringement of the Treaty
      and/or a rule of law relating to the application of the
      Treaty;                                                            Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
 3 . the failure by the Commission to make any or any                                              ( Case C-239/96 )
      proper assessment of the probable loss to EAGFF, the                                           ( 96/C 269/28 )
      risk to which Community funds were put by reason of
      irregularities which may have occurred in each of the
      years 1990 and 1991 by reasons of the alleged failure of            An action against the Commission of the European
      the Irish authorities to fulfil their obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the


title: Appeal brought on 13 June 1997 by Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and Karl-Julius Thamann, acting in the capacity of partners in Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, against the judgment delivered on 15 April 1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-390/94 between Aloys Schröder and Others against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-221/97 P)

text:
  No C 252/16           I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
  the time-limit for transposition expires . The time-limit in                 of limited liability, which the Court of Justice has
  question expired on 1 January 1994 but the Federal                           developed in relation to the Community's liability for
- Republic of Germany has not adopted the necessary                            legal acts, to the Commission decisions in question,
  measures .                                                                   which, in the applicants' and appellants' view, do not
                                                                               constitute legislative acts. In applying the principles of
  (•) OJ No L 35 , 12 . 2 . 1992, p . 24 .                                     liability for administrative action the Court of First
                                                                               Instance should have held the defendant 's measures to
                                                                               be unlawful so that the applicants' and appellants'
                                                                               claim in damages was well founded . A further
                                                                               infringement of Community law incurred in that, in
                                                                               examining whether the fundamental right to property
                                                                               and the fundamental right to carry on a business or
  Appeal brought on 13 June 1997 by Aloys Schroder, Jan                        trade had been infringed, the Court took no account
  Thamann and Karl-Julius Thamann, acting in the capacity
                                                                               of the individual's interest in fundamental rights which
  of partners in Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, against the
                                                                               is guaranteed in the Community legal order. In
  judgment delivered on 15 April 1997 by the Fifth                             adopting the contested decisions the Commission did
  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities in Case T-3 90/94 between Aloys Schroder
                                                                               not in fact adopt generally applicable rules in relation
                                                                               to which it could claim scope for prognosis; they were
  and Others against Commission of the European
                               Communities                                     specific measures whose effects were not only
                                                                               foreseeable but also specifically intended.
                           ( Case C-221/97 P)
                              ( 97/C 252/31 )                            (') OJN0CI8I , 14 . 6 . 1997, p . 11 .
                                                                         (2 ) OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 12 .
  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 April
  1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
  of the European Communities in Case T-3 90/94 ( J )
  between Aloys Schroder and Others and the Commission
  of the European Communities was brought before the
  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 June
  1997 by Aloys Schroder, Jan Thamann and Karl-Julius                    Action brought on 17 June 1997 by the Commission of
  Thamann, acting in the capacity of partners in                            the European Communities against the French Republic
  Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, Neuenkirchen, represented                                                  ( Case C-225/97)
  by Rudolf Brenken, of Rentzmann und Brenken,
  Quakenbriick, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                             ( 97/C 252/32 )
  at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre Feltgen and
  Andre Harpas, 14a Rue des Bains, Luxembourg.
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
  The appellants maintain the claims submitted in the                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
  proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the                  17 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
  European Communities (2 ) and claim that the Court of                  Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
  Justice should:                                                        Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
  — order the respondent to pay DM 173 174,45 as                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      compensation for the damage arising from the
      contested decisions,
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         that the Court should :
  — order the respondents to pay the costs.
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — declare that, by adopting Law No 93/1416 of
                                                                              29 December 1993 as a measure for the transposition
  — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing: the Court                    into national law of the provisions of Council
      of First Instance did not take account of significant                   Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      arguments of the applicants and at any rate did not                     coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      refer to them, or referred to them incorrectly, in the                  provisions relating to the application of Community
      contested judgment. This applies in particular to the                   rules on the procurement procedures of entities
      argument that the definition, according to                              operating in the water, energy, transport and
      administrative borders, of the areas to be covered by                   telecommunications sectors ( ! ), the French Republic
      the bans was inappropriate and that only the criterion                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 (2 ),
      of distance away from the infected herds was the                        2 ( 1 ) (c ) and 2 ( 5 ) and Chapters 2 and 4 of Directive
      appropriate means of fighting the disease.                              92/ 13/EEC,
  — Infringement of Community law: an infringement of
      Community law resides in particular in the application             — order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2003 in Case C-42/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ålands förvaltningsdomstol): Diana Elisabeth Lindman (Freedom to provide services — Lottery tickets — Amount won in a game of chance held in another Member State — Income tax — Tax on games of chance — Special regime in the Åland Islands)

text:
C 7/16                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 6 November 2003
                                                                             in Case C-78/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon): Elliniko Dimosio v Maria
                                                                             Karageorgou (C-78/02), Katina Petrova (C-79/02), Loukas
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              Vlachos (C-80/02) (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 21(1)(c) — Persons liable
                       of 13 November 2003                                   to tax — Person mentioning the tax on an invoice — Tax
                                                                             paid in error by a non-taxable person and included in the
                                                                                invoice established by that person)
in Case C-42/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Ålands förvaltningsdomstol): Diana Elisabeth
                              Lindman (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/27)
(Freedom to provide services — Lottery tickets — Amount
won in a game of chance held in another Member State —
Income tax — Tax on games of chance — Special regime in                                           (Language of the case: Greek)
                          the Åland Islands)
                            (2004/C 7/26)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-78/02 to C-80/02: References to the Court
                                                                             under Article 234 EC by the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece)
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Elliniko Dimosio and Maria Karageorgou (C-78/
In Case C-42/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             02), Katina Petrova (C-79/02), Loukas Vlachos (C-80/02), on
by the Ålands förvaltningsdomstolen (Finland) for a prelimi-
                                                                             the interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
nary ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
                                                                             of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Diana Elisabeth Lindman, on the interpretation of
                                                                             Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
Article 49 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting
                                                                             L 145, p. 1) and in particular the rule in Article 21(1)(c) of that
as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur)
                                                                             directive to the effect that VAT is payable by any person who
and P. Jann, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hew-
                                                                             mentions VAT on an invoice, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
lett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                             composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
judgment on 13 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
                                                                             (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
Article 49 EC prohibits a Member State’s legislation under which             Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Novem-
winnings from games of chance organised in other Member States               ber 2003, in which it has ruled:
are treated as income of the winner chargeable to income tax, whereas
winnings from games of chance conducted in the Member State in
question are not taxable.
                                                                             1.    The amount mentioned as value added tax on the invoice drawn
                                                                                up by a person providing services to the State may not be
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                                classified as value added tax where that person erroneously
                                                                                believes that he is providing those services as a self-employed
                                                                                person whilst in reality there is an employer-employee relation-
                                                                                ship.


title: Case C-31/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 January 2010 — MINERVA Kulturreisen GmbH v Finanzamt Freital

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 January 2010 — MINERVA Kulturreisen GmbH v Finanzamt Freital
   (Case C-31/10)
   2010/C 100/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minerva Kulturreisen GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Freital

      Question referred

   Does the ‘special scheme for travel agents’ in Article 26 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) apply also to the sale by a travel agent of opera tickets in isolation, without the provision of additional services?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)


title: Case C-113/05 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2005 by European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the order made on 10 December 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-196/03 between European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) and European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/13

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2005 by European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) against the order made on 10 December 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-196/03 between European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) and European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-113/05 P)
   (2005/C 115/24)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the order made on 10 December 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-196/03 (1) between European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) and European Parliament and Council of the European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2005 by European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2004 in Case T-196/03;

               —

               declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-196/03 admissible;

               —

               rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear all the costs and expenses of both proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               1.

               The Appellant challenges paragraph 16 of the contested order, which rejects his request to examine the substance before ruling on admissibility or, in the alternative, to reserve any decision until judgment in the main proceedings. The Appellant submits that this rejection is unlawful because the Court of First Instance misinterprets Article 114(4) of the Rules of Procedure and infringes the principle of effectiveness and the duty to state reasons. The Court of First Instance should have interpreted Article 114(4) of the Rules of Procedure broadly and having due regard to the circumstances of the case in accordance with the legal principle of effectiveness. The Appellant also claims that the Court of First Instance has infringed its duty to state reasons by not giving further explanations for the rejection other than that ‘it has sufficient information from the documents in the file to give a decision on the applications’.

               2.

               The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance has erred in law by dismissing the Appellant's submissions and concluding that:

                           (a)

                           the anticompetitive effects produced by the contested measure on the Appellant do not distinguish him from other undertakings. The Appellant submits that other undertakings which do not supply the cosmetics sector, or which supply the cosmetics sector only and do not test their ingredients on animals or do not use CMR substances are in a different situation from that of the Appellant. The Appellant further submits that the Court of First Instance misinterprets the rationale stemming from the Extramet case.

                           (b)

                           the Appellant did not refer to any binding provision superior to the contested measure which might have compelled the Parliament and the Council to take into account the negative effects of the contested measure: the Appellant submits that Article 3(g) EC constitutes a binding provision compelling the Parliament and the Council to ensure that competition in the internal market is not distorted.

                           (c)

                           the Appellant's patents are not as such that the contested measure makes their commercial use immediately and definitively unlawful and, by consequence, make the Appellant ‘individually concerned’ by the contested measure. The Appellant submits that the fact that the contested measure expropriates him from his patented (exclusive) right makes him individually concerned in accordance with the Codorniú case.

                           (d)

                           the Appellant's claim that he is individually concerned because he participated in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested measure on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 76/768 and its participation in the adoption of the contested measure is inadmissible: the Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly concluded that Article 13 refers only to individual measures, since Directive 76/768 does not provide for the possibility to adopt such measures.

               3.

               Moreover, the Appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the right to complete and effective judicial protection and the right to a fair hearing. The Appellant submits that his right to complete and effective judicial protection should have resulted in, at a minimum, the Court of First Instance hearing the substance of the case instead of refusing the Appellant's legal standing based on mere formal arguments.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 02.08.2003, p. 50.


title: Case C-233/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(2) — Derogation from the principle of equal treatment — Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans — Scope — Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings — Coherent statement of the pleas in law)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-233/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment - Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans - Scope - Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings - Coherent statement of the pleas in law))
   (2016/C 287/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and C. Gheorghiu, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14) and Amira Osso v Region Hannover (C-444/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 — Articles 23 and 26 — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2011/95/EU — Rules relating to the content of international protection — Subsidiary protection status — Article 29 — Social welfare — Conditions of access — Article 33 — Freedom of movement within the host Member State — Definition — Restriction — Obligation to reside in a particular place — Different treatment — Comparable situations — Balanced distribution of budgetary costs between local authorities — Grounds of migration or integration policy)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14) and Amira Osso v Region Hannover (C-444/14)
   (Joined Cases C-443/14 and C-444/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 - Articles 23 and 26 - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2011/95/EU - Rules relating to the content of international protection - Subsidiary protection status - Article 29 - Social welfare - Conditions of access - Article 33 - Freedom of movement within the host Member State - Definition - Restriction - Obligation to reside in a particular place - Different treatment - Comparable situations - Balanced distribution of budgetary costs between local authorities - Grounds of migration or integration policy))
   (2016/C 156/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Kreis Warendorf (C-443/14), Amira Osso (C-444/14)

      Respondents: Ibrahim Alo (C-443/14), Region Hannover (C-444/14)

      Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (C-443/14 and C-444/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it does not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the Member State that has granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition.

               2.

               Articles 29 and 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, for the purpose of achieving an appropriate distribution of the burden of paying those benefits among the various institutions competent in that regard, when the applicable national rules do not provide for the imposition of such a measure on refugees, third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law or nationals of that Member State in receipt of those benefits.

               3.

               Article 33 of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as not precluding a residence condition, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, from being imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, in receipt of certain specific social security benefits, with the objective of facilitating the integration of third-country nationals in the Member State that has granted that protection — when the applicable national rules do not provide for such a measure to be imposed on third-country nationals legally resident in that Member State on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law and who are in receipt of those benefits — if beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status are not in a situation that is objectively comparable, so far as that objective is concerned, with the situation of third-country nationals legally resident in the Member State concerned on grounds that are not humanitarian or political or based on international law, it being for the referring court to determine whether that is the case.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Tournai by judgment of 6 June 1995 in the case of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants (INASTI) v. Claude Hervein and Herviller SA (Case C-221/95)

text:
No C 208/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 8 . 95
— grant the forms of order sought at first instance .                 Reference         for    a       preliminary   ruling   from      the
                                                                      Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of
                                                                      14 June 1995 in the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                 P. M. Laumen
                                                                                ( Case C-220/95 )
— Article 85 of the Treaty                                                                          ( 95 /C 208/32 )
   The Court of First Instance affirmed that the agreements           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    in which the appellant participated were intended to              European Communities by a judgment of the
    restrict competition and were likely to impede trade              Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
    between the Member States merely by establishing prices           Amsterdam ) of 14 June 1995 , which was received at the
   and quotas .                                                       Court Registry on 21 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v. P. M. Laumen on
   The Court of First Instance did not take account either of         the following question:
    the Italian version of Article 85 according to which an
                                                                      Must the decision of the English j udge ( 1 ), which in any case
    agreement must have not only as its 'object' but also as
    its 'effect' the prevention of competition, nor of the            relates in part to a maintenance obligation, be regarded as a
    Court's interpretation of that article in the other               decision which relates ( in part ) to rights in property arising
    language versions .
                                                                      out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of
                                                                      indent 1 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
                                                                      Convention even though :
    It is in any event arbitrary, in the appellant's view, to
    hold that all agreements fixing prices and setting quotas         ( a ) the income requirement is capitalized ;
    are ipso facto contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ). In fact, whilst it
    is true that the agreements which directly or indirectly          ( b ) an order was made to transfer the house and the De
    fix prices and which limit outlets have as their object the               Heem painting which, according to the decision, belong
    prevention , restriction or distortion of competition, that               to the husband;
    does not suffice for a finding that they are contrary to
                                                                      ( c ) in his decree , the English judge himself expressly stated
    Article 85 . It is further necessary that they are capable of
                                                                              that he did not regard the marriage settlement as
    affecting trade between Member States . That effect on                    binding;
    trade must also be appreciable . In the appellant's view,
    the contested agreement was not in a position to alter to         ( d ) it cannot be made out from that decree to what extent
    a significant extent trade between Italy and France.                      the factor mentioned in ( c ) influenced the English
                                                                              judge's decision ?
— The wire regime
                                                                      ( ! ) The parties who both have Netherlands nationality, were
                                                                            married in the Netherlands under the regime of common
    In the appellant's view the 'Court of First Instance                    property . They later concluded a marriage settlement whereby
    omitted to examine an important question of law,                        the marriage regime was amended to universal separation of
    namely whether an agreement between producers of a                      property . This severed and divided the community of property.
    finished product (welded steel mesh ) may be deemed                     The parties later settled in London .
    unlawful when the agreement is the necessary
    consequence of mandatory Community rules imposing
    quotas and prices for the semi-finished product
    ( wire ).
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
                                                                      Travail de Tournai by judgment of 6 June 1995 in the case
— Article 15 of Regulation No 17                                      of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
                                                                      Independants (INASTI ) v. Claude Hervein and Herviller
                                                                                SA
    The appellant considers that the Court of First Instance
    did not correctly interpret Article 15 of Regulation                                          ( Case C-221/95 )
    No 17 which gives the Community the power to impose                                              ( 95/C 208/33 )
    fines, that is a discretionary and not a mandatory
    power .                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
    All the arguments relied on by the appellant in support of        Travail de Tournai ( Labour Tribunal , Tournai ) of 6 June
    the legality of the agreement must be considered in order          1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June
    to assess at least whether a fine was justified and whether        1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Institut
    the fine actually imposed satisfied equitable criteria .           National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
    However, the Court of First Instance examined only                Independants v. Claude Hervein and Herviller SA on the
     some of those arguments whilst minimizing others of               following question:
    greater importance .
                                                                       does self-employment ( activite non salariee ) referred to in
                                                                       particular in Article 14a ( 2 ) of CounciURegulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (') refer in particular to the
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 8 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208 / 17
activity carried out as a self-employed person ( travailleur             3 July 1995 by the Council of the European Union,
independant) by a national of a Member State ?                           represented by Jean-Paul Jacque, Director of the Legal
                                                                         Service, and Felix Van Craeyenest and Yves Cretien, Legal
(!) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .                                Advisors , acting as Agents , with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard , European
                                                                         Investment Bank, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic by judgment of 13 June 1995 in the
      case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et Cie                The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          ( Case C-222/95 )
                             ( 95 /C 208/34 )                            1 . annul the act of the President of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Parliament of 26 April 1 995 declaring the final adoption
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             of amending and supplementary budget No 1 1995 ;
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic of 13 June 1995 which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 June 1995 , for a preliminary                2 . consequently, declare that budget, as adopted by the
ruling in the case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et                 European Parliament on the same day, invalid ;
Cie .
The Court of Cassation refers the following question to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities for a                       3 . state that the acts implementing the budget which have
preliminary ruling:                                                           been adopted up until the date when the judgment is
                                                                              delivered are retained in their entirety;
as regards the period preceding the entry into force of
Council Directive 89/646/EEC ( 1 ) of 15 December 1989 on
the coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the                  4 . order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC ( 2 ), do Articles 59 and 61 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
have to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
requiring a licence in order to supply banking services , in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
particular in order to grant a mortgage loan, where the bank
concerned is established in another Member State where it
has been granted a licence ?                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         relied on in Case C-41 /95 ('). The action concerns only
 (!) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              budgetary headings Bl-500 (Accompanying measures —
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 322 , 17 . 12 . 1977, p . 30 .
                                                                         former system ), Bl-5010 ( Early retirement ) and Bl-5012
                                                                          ( Afforestation ). The Council maintains that the three
                                                                         headings which the Parliament reclassified by voting under
Action brought on 3 July 1995 by the Council of the                      the budgetary procedure for the adoption of ASB No 1 / 1995
        European Union against the European Parliament                   are in fact compulsory expenditure , because those three
                                                                         headings are covered by the agricultural guideline by virtue
                           ( Case C-230/95 )
                                                                         of Community legislative measures .
                              ( 95/C 208/35 )
 An action against the European Parliament was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               (M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                     judicial vacation the oath-taking ceremony before the Court
                       judicial year 1994/95                              of Justice for new members of the Court of First Instance
                              ( 95/C 208/36 )                             could not take place until after the judicial vacation and that
                                                                          consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the third
  At the plenary conference held on 6 July 1995 the Court of              paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of
  First Instance took formal note of the fact that owing to the           Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the EAEC Statute


title: Case T-652/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — AF Steelcase v EUIPO (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Action for annulment — Award decision — No direct concern — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — System for excluding tenders — Non-contractual liability — Material damage — Non-material damage)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — AF Steelcase v EUIPO
   (Case T-652/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices - Rejection of a tenderer’s tender - Action for annulment - Award decision - No direct concern - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Proportionality - System for excluding tenders - Non-contractual liability - Material damage - Non-material damage))
   (2016/C 287/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: AF Steelcase SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: Rodríguez Bajón and A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, and subsequently N. Bambara and J. Crespo Carrillo, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EUIPO’s decision of 8 July 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders concerning the supply and installation of furniture and accessories at EUIPO’s head offices (OJ 2014/S 023-035020) and the decisions related to the decision rejecting the applicant’s tender, including, if necessary, the award decision, and an application for the tender procedure to be resumed at the stage before the decision of 8 July 2014 and, secondly, application under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AF Steelcase SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-277/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Vienna (Austria) lodged on 3 June 2010 — Martin Luksan v Petrus van der Let

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Vienna (Austria) lodged on 3 June 2010 — Martin Luksan v Petrus van der Let
   (Case C-277/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Vienna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin Luksan

      Defendant: Petrus van der Let

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of European Union law concerning copyright and related rights, and in particular Article 2(2), (5) and (6) of Directive 92/100, (1) Article 1(5) of Directive 93/83/EEC (2) and Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/116, (3) in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive 92/100, Article 2 of Directive 93/83 and Articles 2 and 3 and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, (4) be interpreted as meaning that the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work or other authors of films designated by the legislatures of the Member States are directly (primarily) entitled in all events, by law, to the exploitation rights in respect of reproduction, satellite broadcasting and other communication to the public through the making available to the public and that the film-maker is not entitled thereto directly (primarily) and exclusively;
               Are laws of the Member States which assign the exploitation rights by law directly (primarily) and exclusively to the film-maker inconsistent with European Union law?

         If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

               2a.

               Does European Union law grant the legislatures of the Member States the option of providing for a legal presumption in favour of a transfer to the film-maker of the exploitation rights within the meaning of paragraph 1 to which the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work or other authors of films designated by the legislatures of the Member States are entitled, even in respect of rights other than rental and lending rights, and if so, must the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) and (6) of Directive 92/100, in conjunction with Article 4 of that directive, be satisfied?

               2b.

               Must the primary ownership of rights of the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work, or of other authors of films designated by the legislature of a Member State also be applied to the rights granted by the legislature of a Member State to equitable remuneration, such as ‘empty cassette remuneration’ pursuant to Paragraph 42b of the Austrian Urhebergesetz (Copyright law), or to rights to fair compensation within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29?

         If the answer to Question 2b is in the affirmative:

               3.

               Does European Union law grant the legislatures of the Member States the option of providing for a legal presumption in favour of a transfer to the film-maker of the rights to remuneration within the meaning of paragraph 2 to which the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work or other authors of films designated by the legislatures of the Member States are entitled, and if so, must the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) and (6) of Directive 92/100, in conjunction with Article 4 of that directive, be satisfied?

         If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:

               4.

               If a legal provision of a Member State accords to the principal director of a cinematographic or audiovisual work or other authors of films designated by the legislatures of the Member States a right to half of the statutory rights to remuneration, but provides that that right is capable of alteration and not therefore unwaivable, is that provision consistent with the aforementioned provisions of European Union law in the area of copyright and related rights?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61)

      (2)  Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15)

      (3)  Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12)

      (4)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)


title: Case C-139/05: Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/17

         Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-139/05)
   (2005/C 115/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain, represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, in so far as it does not allocate quotas to Spain in relation to the fishing opportunities which were distributed before the accession of that State in respect of the North Sea;

               2.

               order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those in Case C-133/04 (2).

      (1)  OJ L 12 of 14.1.2005, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 106, of 30.04.2004, p. 38.


title: Case T-183/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission (Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — Supply of technical assistance to the Government of Syria — Rejection of the tender — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission
   (Case T-183/10) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Supply of technical assistance to the Government of Syria - Rejection of the tender - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 366/59
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sviluppo Globale GEIE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, acting as Agent, and P. Manzini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 not to accept the tender submitted by the consortium led by the applicant in the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development (OJ 2010 2009/S 223 319862)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 not to accept the tender submitted by the consortium led by the applicant in the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development (OJ 2010 2009/S 223 319862);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sviluppo Globale GEIE.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-530/14 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Appeal — State aid — Greek Casinos — System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Advantage — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-530/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Greek Casinos - System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2016/C 038/21)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Hellenic Republic (represented by K. Boskovits and P. Mylonopoulos, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-61/02: Commerzbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Article 81 EC — Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services — Germany — Procedure in default)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-61/02: Commerzbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Procedure in default)
   (2004/C 314/37)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-61/02: Commerzbank AG, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzky, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty — (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) (OJ 2003 L 15, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case C-4/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Rules governing cases of overlapping entitlements to family benefits)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman
   (Case C-4/13) (1)

   ((Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Family benefits - Rules governing cases of overlapping entitlements to family benefits))
   (2015/C 007/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse

      Respondant: Susanne Fassbender-Firman

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 76(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as authorising the Member State of employment to provide in its legislation for suspension by the competent institution of entitlement to family benefits when no application has been made for family benefits in the Member State of residence. In such circumstances, if the Member State of employment provides for such suspension of entitlement to family benefits in its national legislation, the competent institution is bound to apply that suspension in accordance with Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, provided that the conditions for the application of that legislation are met, and has no discretion in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-523/11: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
   (Case T-523/11) (1)

   2012/C 49/60
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-60/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 February 2016 — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 February 2016 — Mohammad Khir Amayry v Migrationsverket
   (Case C-60/16)
   (2016/C 111/19)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten i Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohammad Khir Amayry

      Defendant: Migrationsverket

      Questions referred

               1.

               If an asylum seeker is not in detention at the time when the Member State responsible agrees to take charge of him but is detained at a later date — on the ground that only then is the assessment made that there is a significant risk that the person will abscond — may the time limit of six weeks in Article 28(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 (1) be calculated in such a situation from the day on which the person is detained or is it to be calculated from another time and if so, when?

               2.

               Does Article 28 of the regulation preclude, in a situation where an asylum seeker is not in detention at the time when the Member State responsible agrees to take charge of him, the application of national rules which, in Sweden, mean that an alien may not be kept in detention pending implementation [of a transfer] for longer than two months, if there are no serious reasons for detaining him for a longer period, and if there are such serious reasons, the alien may be kept in detention for a maximum of three months or, if it is probable that implementation will take longer due to a lack of cooperation from the alien or it takes time to obtain the necessary documents, a maximum of twelve months?

               3.

               If an implementation procedure is recommenced when an appeal or a review no longer has suspensive effect (c.f. Article 27(3)), does a new time limit of six weeks for implementation of the transfer start to run or is there a deduction to be made, for example, of the number of days the person has already spent in detention after the Member State responsible agreed to take charge of him or take him back?

               4.

               Is it of any importance whether the asylum seeker who appealed against a transfer decision has not himself applied for the implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the result of the appeal (c.f. Article 27(3)(c) and (4))?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).


title: Case C-351/99 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA, ISI - Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA, Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of SECI - Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and SFIR - Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnolo SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-158/95 brought by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others against Council of the European Union

text:
C 352/24               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
    — Breach of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88: failure           European Communities in Case T-158/95 brought by Eridania
        to comply with the procedural requirements governing           Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others against Council of the
        application of this authorisation. The contested               European Union, supported by the Commission, was brought
        decision was not preceded by an examination, let alone         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
        a suitable examination, of the measures in respect of          22 September 1999 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA,
        which payment of the first advance was sought. While           established in Genoa, ISI — Industria Saccarifera Italiana
        the contested decision does refer to the Control Report        Agroindustriale SpA, established in Padua, Sadam Zuccherifici,
        on the regions of Rijnmond and Gelderland drawn up             a division of SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali
        by DG V/G/3, that Control Report does not have any             SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Castiglionese SpA, estab-
        connection with the operations in respect of which             lished in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna,
        payment of the advance is being sought. In the first           Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, established in Termoli and SFIR
        place, the report concerns operations in the past,             — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnolo SpA, established
        and, second, it relates to fewer regions than do the           in Cesena, incorporating, following a merger, Ponteco Zuccheri
        operations in respect of which the first advance was           SpA, also established in Cesena, all represented by Bernard
        sought by letter of 16 March 1999. In addition, the            O’Connor, Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland, and Ivano
        Control Report relates to operations designed to               Vigliotti, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in
        achieve objective 3, whereas the contested decision            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue
        relates not only to operations designed to achieve             Marie Adélaide, L-2128 Luxembourg.
        objective 3 but also to operations undertaken to attain
        objectives 1, 2 and 5b, as well as the Community
        Employment initiative.                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
— Infringement of the principle of proportionality: the con-           (1) annul the decision of the Court of First Instance declaring
    tested decision goes beyond what is necessary for the                  inadmissible the applicants’ application for annulment
    protection of the Community’s financial interests. The                 of Regulation No 1534/95 (1) and Article 4 thereof in
    burdens which the contested decision imposes on pro-                   particular, for annulment of Regulation No 1101/95 (2) (in
    moters who were not the subject of the inspections and in              so far as, in Article 1(13) thereof, it replaces Article 46 of
    respect of whom the Control Report finds that closer                   Regulation No 1785/81 (3), and thereby prevents the Italian
    investigation is necessary in order to be able to determine            State from granting adjustment aid to Italian sugar pro-
    whether the practices criticised do in fact concern them               ducers for the costs of storage in Italy arising from high
    are out of all reasonable proportion.                                  interest rates), and for a declaration that Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81, and Article 8 thereof in particular, is
— Infringement of the principle of adversarial proceedings.                unlawful;
— Breach of Article 253 EC (inadequate statement of reasons).          (2) annul the decision of the Court of First Instance ordering
                                                                           the applicants to bear the costs incurred by the Council;
(1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
                                                                       (3) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                           judgment in the application made in Case T-158/95
                                                                           for annulment of Regulation No 1534/95 and Article 4
                                                                           thereof in particular, for annulment of Regulation
                                                                           No 1101/95 (in so far as, in Article 1(13) thereof, it
                                                                           replaces Article 46 of Regulation No 1785/81, and thereby
                                                                           prevents the Italian State from granting adjustment aid to
                                                                           Italian sugar producers for the costs of storage in Italy
                                                                           arising from high interest rates), and for a declaration that
Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Eridania Zuc-                       Regulation No 1785/81, and Article 8 thereof in particular,
cherifici Nazionali SpA, ISI — Industria Saccarifera Itali-                is unlawful;
ana Agroindustriale SpA, Sadam Zuccherifici, a division
of SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA,                (4) if the Court of Justice considers that it can give final
Sadam Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccheri-                      judgment on the merits of Case T-158/95 pursuant to
ficio del Molise SpA and SFIR — Società Fondiaria                          Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, allow
Industriale Romagnolo SpA against the judgment deliver-                    the specific written and oral pleadings on those matters;
ed on 8 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-158/95 brought by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA                (5) order the Council to bear the costs of the case.
    and Others against Council of the European Union
                        (Case C-351/99 P)                              Pleas in law and principal arguments
                         (1999/C 352/37)                               The appellants contest the judgment:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by             — insofar as it is held that the application for annulment of
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 1(13) of Regulation No 1101/95 is inadmissible;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/25
— insofar as it is held that Article 4 of Regulation No 1534/95         The appellant claims that the Court should:
    is not of individual concern to the appellants, and the
    fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now,              1. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declared
    after amendment, Article 230 EC), as interpreted by the                 inadmissible the action brought by the appellants for
    case-law of the Court of Justice, is thereby breached;                  annulment of Regulation No 1534/95 (1), specifically
                                                                            Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
                                                                            No 1785/81 (2), specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof, is
                                                                            unlawful;
The appellants submit that the decision of the Court of First
Instance is flawed and erroneous and therefore incompatible
                                                                        2. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it ordered
with Community rules.                                                       the appellants to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
                                                                        3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
                                                                            ruling on the application made in Case T-168/95 for
(1) OJ 1995 L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.                                      annulment of Regulation (EEC) No 1534/95, specifically
(2) OJ 1995 L 110 of 17.5.1995, p. 1.                                       Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
(3) OJ 1981 L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                        (EEC) No 1785/81, specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof,
                                                                            is unlawful;
                                                                        4. Should the Court of Justice deem it appropriate to
                                                                            adjudicate on the merits of Case T-168/95, in accordance
                                                                            with Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, admit
                                                                            the oral and written pleadings specifically related thereto;
                                                                        5. Order the Council to pay the costs.
Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Società Eridan-                  Pleas and main arguments
ia SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agoindustriale SpA
(ISI), Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of Società Esercizi               As grounds for the present appeal, the appellants allege various
Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI), Sadam Castiglionese                 infringements of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Società Zuccherificio del                       In particular, they maintain that, in finding that the applicants
Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                  were not individually concerned by Article 1(f) of the contested
SpA (SFIR) against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999                Regulation, the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  paragraph of Article 230 EC (formerly Article 173 of the EC
the European Communities in Case T-168/95 between                       Treaty) as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others and
the Council of the European Union, supported by the
        Commission of the European Communities                          The appellants maintain that the judgment under appeal is
                                                                        flawed and erroneous, hence incompatible with Community
                                                                        law.
                       (Case C-352/99 P)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.
                        (1999/C 352/38)                                 (2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-168/95 between Società Eridania Spa and Others and the
Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission,
was brought before the Court of Justice on 22 September
1999 by Società Eridania SpA, whose registered office is in
Genoa, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA (ISI),        Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
whose registered office is in Padua, Sadam Zuccherifici, a                 mission of the European Communities against Ireland
division of Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI),
whose registered office is in Bologna, Sadam Castiglionese SpA                                  (Case C-354/99)
and Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered offices are in
Bologna, Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose regis-
tered office is at Termoli, and Società Fondiaria Industriale                                   (1999/C 352/39)
Romagnola SpA (SFIR), whose registered office is at Cesena,
incorporating, following a merger, Ponteco Zuccheri SpA,                An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
whose registered office is also at Cesena, all represented by           Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999
Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor with a right of audience before             by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
the High Court of Ireland, and Ivano Vigliotti, of the Genoa            by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaide,                   Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
L-2128 Luxembourg.                                                      Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.


title: Case C-615/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Point 13 — Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd v European Commission
   (Case C-615/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Point 13 - Determination of the value of sales relating to the infringement))
   (2017/C 144/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (represented by: M. Struys, A. Fall, L. Eskenazi and C. Erol, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, G. Meessen and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-271/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — Occupational old-age pensions of local authority employees — Direct award of contracts, without a call for tenders at European Union level, to pension providers designated in a collective agreement concluded between management and labour)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-271/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Occupational old-age pensions of local authority employees - Direct award of contracts, without a call for tenders at European Union level, to pension providers designated in a collective agreement concluded between management and labour)
   2010/C 246/02
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh and C. Pilgaard Zinglersen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and A. Engman, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 8, in conjunction with Titles III to VI, of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and Article 20, in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55, of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Practice of local authorities and local authority undertakings of awarding contracts relating to collective pension schemes directly without open public procurement procedures

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in so far as service contracts in respect of occupational old-age pensions were awarded directly, without a call for tenders at European Union level, to bodies or undertakings referred to in Paragraph 6 of the Collective agreement on the conversion, for local authority employees, of earnings into pension savings (Tarifvertrag zur Entgeltungwandlung für Arbeitnehmer im kommunalen öffentlichen Dienst), in 2004 by local authorities or local authority undertakings which then had more than 4 505 employees, in 2005 by local authorities or local authority undertakings which then had more than 3 133 employees and in 2006 and in 2007 by local authorities or local authority undertakings which then had more than 2 402 employees, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations, until 31 January 2006 under Article 8, in conjunction with Titles III to VI, of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and from 1 February 2006 under Article 20, in conjunction with Articles 23 to 55, of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-18/07: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 28 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Jönköping, Sweden) — Mattias Jalkhed v Jordbruksverket

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 28 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Jönköping, Sweden) — Mattias Jalkhed v Jordbruksverket
   (Case C-18/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/50)

      Language of the case: Swedish

   The President of the Third Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.